Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. Speaker in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS,

Provisional Order Bills (No Standing Orders applicable),

Mr. Speaker laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:

Kilmarnock Gas Provisional Order (No. 2) Bill.

Bill to be read a Second time Tomorrow.

Mid Southern Utility Bill,

Southern Railway Bill,

Trent Navigation Bill,

Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.

Gas Light and Coke Company Bill [Lords],

South Metropolitan Gas Bill [Lords],

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

TRANSITIONAL PAYMENTS.

Mr. CHARLES BROWN: 1.
asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that the Mansfield Guardians Area Committee have refused to continue the determination of transitional payments to the unemployed; if he will state the reasons for this refusal; and what steps he has taken to deal with the situation?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Henry Betterton): Yes, Sir. The Mansfield Guardians Committee of the Nottingham County Council ceased to carry out their statutory duties after
illegal determinations given by them had been revised by the public assistance committee of the council. The public assistance committee have now appointed an emergency committee under powers-conferred on them by the Order in Council, to discharge the functions of the guardians committee in relation to transitional payments. No intervention on my part has been necessary.

Mr. COCKS: Why does the Minister say that these determinations are illegal, seeing that they are very sensible ones?

Sir H. BETTERTON: They are illegal, because they do not comply with the law.

Sir ADRIAN BAILLIE: 4.
asked the Minister of Labour whether it is with his knowledge and sanction that public assistance officers, in assessing claims for transitional benefit, take into consideration amounts paid by way of workmen's compensation to members of a family; and whether, in view of the fact that such a practice tends to defeat the objects of the Workmen's Compensation Acts, he will take steps to cause this practice to cease?

Sir H. BETTERTON: It is the duty of public assistance authorities to take into account all sources of income but at the same time to make due allowance in the exercise of their discretion for any special need arising from injury or disability.

Mr. THORNE: Am I to understand that where a public education authority gives free meals to children, the value of that must be taken into account?

Sir H. BETTERTON: That is not the question on the Order Paper. Perhaps the hon. Member will put it down. The question on the Order Paper deals with the work of the public assistance committees in regard to assessment for transitional payments of compensation for accidents.

Sir A. BAILLIE: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it is justifiable that workmen's compensation should be taken into account by the public assistance officer?

Sir H. BETTERTON: That is a question that has often been asked before. When it is said that this must be taken into account, it may well be that an
amount may be put on one side, that is the debit side, and an equivalent amount in proper cases may be put on the other side, that is, the credit side.

COURTS OF REFEREES.

Mr. PRICE: 2.
asked the Minister of Labour the total cost of the courts of referees for the first six months of 1931 and 1932, respectively, and how the amounts are made up as between chairmen's fees, representative or assessor's fees, and other charges?

Sir H. BETTERTON: As the reply contains a table of figures, I will, if I may, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

Figures for the month of June, 1932, are not yet available. The amounts paid during the six months ended 31st May, 1931, and 31st May, 1932, respectively, on account of (a) remuneration to chairmen of courts of referees, and (b) travelling, subsistence, compensation for loss of earnings and incidental expenses, of chairmen, members of courts of referees, and boards of assessors and witnesses, and claimants summoned to attend meetings, were as follows:


—
6 months to 31st May, 1931
6 months to 31st May,1932.



£
£


Remuneration to chairman of courts of referees.
50,902
54,638


Other expenses as specified above.
8,863
8,143


Totals
£59,765
£62,781

No fees are payable except in the case of chairmen of courts of referees. Compensation for loss of earnings is payable only in the case of workmen representatives.

EXCHANGE PROCEDURE.

Mr. HUTCHISON: 3.
asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been called to the practice, in the case of an unemployed man who has found a job and reported it to his Employment Exchange with a request for a green card, of taking away the position from him and giving it to some other unemployed
man higher up on the waiting list; and what action does he propose to take to check this practice?

Sir H. BETTERTON: The object of the exchange is to submit to a particular employer the most suitable man for a job. The object of the "Green Card" is to enable the employer to know that the man has been sent by the Exchange. The procedure relating to the issue of the "Green Card" is now under examination, and if my hon. Friend can assist me with particulars of specific cases where the present practice has given rise to misunderstanding, or is alleged to be working unsatisfactorily, I shall be grateful.

TRANSFER OF WORKERS.

Mr. PRICE: 5.
asked the Minister of Labour what is the number of men, boys and girls who have been transferred from distressed areas to work in the London area since 1st January, 1932?

Sir H. BETTERTON: During the period 29th December, 1931, to 30th May, 1932, 1,248 men, 24 boys and 104 girls were transferred through the agency of the Employment Exchange service from depressed areas to employment in the London division.

Sir PERCY HARRIS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a great increase in the number of unemployed men in the London area?

Sir H. BETTERTON: It depends on the kind of places. I have not the figures in mind, but, if the hon. Gentleman says that that is so, of course I accept it.

STATISTICS.

Mr. PRICE: 6.
asked the Minister of Labour how many more unemployed there are now than in October, 1931?

Sir H. BETTERTON: At 23rd May, 1932, the latest date for which figures are available, there were 15,214 more persons on the registers of Employment Exchanges in Great Britain than at 26th October, 1931.

DOMESTIC SERVICE.

Mr. GEORGE HARVEY: 7.
asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that the Twickenham Education Committee have opened a training centre for girls for domestic service with free training,
board and pocket money; and what portion of the expenses involved, if any, falls upon the national Exchequer?

Sir H. BETTERTON: I am informed that the Twickenham Education Authority have not opened such a centre, and that the statements which have appeared to the contrary effect are based on an entire misapprehension. The second part of the question does not, therefore, arise.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRISH SWEEPSTAKES.

Mr. LAMBERT: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can give information as to the number of sellers in this country who received £2,357,000 in commissions for the sale of tickets in the Irish sweepstakes?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Oliver Stanley): No, Sir; it is not possible, on the basis of the available material, to form an estimate of the number of persons entitled to sellers' commission.

Mr. LAMBERT: Cannot the Government take some action to prevent these people selling tickets in this way, considering that there was £13,000,000 subscribed, and only £7,000,000 came back to this country in prizes?

Mr. STANLEY: That hardly arises out of the question on the Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — FACTORY PROSECUTION, HARROW.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 9.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the charges brought by the inspector of factories at Wealdstone sessions on the 5th April against Adams Brothers and Burnley, Limited, sheet metal workers, Harrow, for not having a machine securely fenced on the night of 18th February, when a boy's right hand was severed, and to the magistrates' refusal to state a case for appeal against their dismissal of those charges; and, in view of this firm having been thrice previously prosecuted for similar offences, the last occasions being 5th February, 1929, and 30th January, 1931, when they were convicted and fined, whether he will both apply to the High Court for a mandamus to compel the
magistrates to state a case to explain their decision in respect of this occurrence and also issue instructions requiring this firm to provide that all dangerous parts of their machinery are securely fenced so as to be equally safe to every person, young and old, in accordance with Section 10 (1) (c) of the Factory Act, 1891?

Mr. STANLEY: The case to which the hon. Member refers has already been very carefully considered in consultation with our legal advisers, but it appeared that for technical reasons an appeal against the dismissal of the charges would be unlikely to succeed, and in the circumstances it was decided to take other steps to ensure compliance with the requirements of the Factory Acts. Since the charges were dismissed, a thorough inspection of these works has been carried out by the district inspector, accompanied by one of the engineering inspectors, and the firm have been given full and detailed instructions as to their obligations in regard to fencing and other requirements of the Act. These instructions will be carefully followed up and the hon. Member may be assured that all necessary steps will be taken to enforce compliance.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the Under-secretary not aware that the same firm, who apparently had been previously warned by his inspector, had been prosecuted on no less than three occasions for not fencing round their machinery, and now that a man has lost his right hand does the hon. Gentleman not think it is time that the magistrates in that particular division compelled this backward firm to do justice to their workpeople?

Mr. STANLEY: That does not alter the question whether we should be likely to succeed if we lodged an appeal. We are advised by our legal advisers that, for certain technical reasons, there would be little chance of an appeal being successful.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is it not within the power of the Under-Secretary's Department to compel the magistrates, who dismissed the case, to reconsider it?

Mr. THORNE: Will the Under-secretary make inquiries as to how many months it was prior to the accident that the inspector paid a visit to this factory?

Oral Answers to Questions — CRUELTY TO ANIMALS (PROSECUTIONS).

Mr. HUTCHISON: 10.
asked the Home Secretary whether he will take steps to give power to benches of magistrates before whom cases of gross cruelty to animals are heard to order a medical examination of the prisoners whom they may decide to convict before sending them to prison?

Mr. STANLEY: No, Sir. Magistrates can already obtain a medical examination in all cases where they consider it desirable.

Mr. HUTCHISON: Are the magistrates not entitled to send criminals of this type to Broadmoor?

Mr. MACPHERSON: Will the Undersecretary see to it that the Department will extend no leniency of any sort or kind to anyone guilty of such gross cruelty to animals?

Mr. STANLEY: Obviously, any action which my right hon. Friend takes will always depend upon the circumstances of the case. I can give no assurance with regard to a hypothetical case.

Sir ROBERT GOWER: 11.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the case of Frederick Kay, who was recently convicted and sentenced to imprisonment by the Romford justices for beating a dog to death; and whether, in view of this and other cases of cruelty to animals, he will consider instituting legislation authorising courts to inflict the penalty of flogging upon persons so convicted and also forbidding the further issue to them of licences to keep dogs?

Captain SPENCER: 13.
asked the Home Secretary whether he will consider introducing legislation with a view to making more drastic the penalties imposed on persons convicted of cruelty to animals and preventing the further issue of dog licences to such persons?

Mr. STANLEY: The attention of my right hon. Friend has been drawn to the case in question. He could not undertake to introduce legislation on this subject.

Sir R. GOWER: Is the Under-Secretary aware that the man informed the court that within the last few years he
had killed seven other animals in a similar fashion, and could he not introduce some form of legislation which would deprive the man, and others similar to him, of the right to own dogs in the future?

Mr. STANLEY: The question has been very carefully considered, and there are almost insuperable difficulties in the way of introducing legislation. With regard to the other part of the hon. Member's question relating to flogging, I would point out that, in this particular case, the man was 60 years of age, and, obviously, flogging would not be a suitable punishment.

Sir R. GOWER: Will the Under-Secretary tell me what are the insuperable difficulties?

Mr. STANLEY: I could not do that within the limits of a Parliamentary answer, but, if my hon. Friend would like to discuss the matter with me, I shall be glad to do so.

Mr. THORNE: Is the hon. Member not aware that the man in question had been to Church on the same morning?

Mr. MAXTON: Does the Under-secretary regard the flogging of a man as a more moral action than the beating of a dog?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

ACCIDENTS.

Mr. MABANE: 12.
asked the Home Secretary how many persons have been killed and injured in the Metropolitan area and the rest of the country, respectively, in road accidents in which heavy road vehicles have been involved between 10th March, 1932, and the latest available date?

Mr. STANLEY: For the period 11th March to 31st May, inclusive, the figures for the Metropolitan Police district are 101 killed and 2,618 injured. I regret that figures for the rest of the country are not available.

Mr. MABANE: Is there any evidence to show that the new instructions recently issued to the police have had any effect in reducing the excessive and illegal speed of those vehicles, which is the principle cause of these accidents?

Mr. STANLEY: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put that question on the Paper?

ROAD SERVICE LICENCES.

Mr. HICKS: 63.
asked the Minister of Transport what is the reason for the delay in making decisions in respect of appeals by motor coach proprietors serving London and the suburbs; and whether, seeing that the special committee appointed to hear appeals against the decision of the traffic commissioner of the Metropolitan area does not decide the cases but reports to the Minister, the Minister is going to decide in each case?

Captain AUSTIN HUDSON (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. No delay is being incurred. The committee presented their first report, dealing with two matters of general policy which had been referred to them on 18th June, and are still engaged in hearing individual appeals. The answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative.

Oral Answers to Questions — SHOP HOURS, YARMOUTH.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: 14.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that the Yarmouth Town Council recently decided to make an order under the Shops Act, 1928, extending during the summer months the hours of opening of shops on weekdays to 10.30 p.m., providing a maximum limit of 72 hours per week; and if he will refuse his sanction to this proposal?

Mr. STANLEY: The attention of the Department has not previously been called to the order referred to. I would point out to the hon. Member that an order of this nature would be made by the local authority under Section 6 of the Shops (Hours of Closing) Act, 1928, and would not require the Secretary of State's sanction.

Mr. DAVIES: In view of the fact that it is obvious that shop assistants in this town will be compelled to work at least 72 hours a week, is it not possible for the Home Office to call the attention of this authority to the very retrograde step that they are taking?

Mr. STANLEY: The hon. Member will realise that, as long as the provisions of the Act of Parliament which was passed
by this House are in force, my right hon. Friend has no standing in the matter.

Mr. DAVIES: Has not the Home Office some influence with a local authority like this, without calling in the aid of the law?

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is the Undersecretary aware that the Act under which the Home Office are operating was largely due to the efforts of the hon. Gentleman opposite; and that the proprietors of these establishments are finding it very hard to make a living and wish to employ as many assistants as possible?

Mr. DAVIES: Will the Minister bear in mind the fact that there is only so much trade to be done in a week, and that all this trade can be done during the present opening hours?

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is my hon. Friend aware that that argument would justify the opening of shops for only four hours a day?

Oral Answers to Questions — INDUSTRIAL. DISEASES (SILICOSIS).

Mr. LAWSON: 15.
asked the Home Secretary the number of compensation claims made, and the number granted, since the silicosis order came into operation?

Mr. STANLEY: I understand that the hon. Member is referring to cases among coalminers. I regret I have no information as to the number of claims made, but the number of cases in coalmines in which compensation was paid since the 1st February, 1929, when the Various Industries (Silicosis) Scheme came into operation, up to the end of 1931, is 91, including 20 fatal cases.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: 17.
asked the Minister of Health what is the procedure adopted by his department to make sure that every compulsorily insured person, especially in the case of domestic servants, is brought within the scope of the National Health Insurance Scheme?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Hilton Young): The enforcement of compliance with the National Health Insurance Acts is secured by visits of inspectors to employer' premises and by the
investigation of complaints, supplemented, where necessary, by legal proceedings. As regards domestic servants, although inspectors have no statutory right of entry to private houses, action is taken in all cases where information suggesting non-compliance is received from employed persons or their Approved Societies.

Mr. DAVIES: Has the right hon. Gentleman any reason to believe that employers, owing to the economic depression, are not carrying out the law in this respect?

Sir H. YOUNG: I have no evidence of any increase in the number of breaches of the law.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Will the Minister take steps to release domestic servants from the burden of this Act? Does he not know that no employer can call in a panel doctor for his servant if he needs him?

Mr. BATEY: 19.
asked the Minister of Health the separate amounts paid by the employers, the employés, and the Treasury to the National Health Insurance Fund for the year 1931 or the latest available date?

Sir H. YOUNG: The contributions paid under the National Health Insurance Acts for the year ended 31st December, 1931, amounted to approximately £25,870,000, of which the portions payable by the employers and employés are estimated to be £13,150,000 and £12,720,000 respectively. The amount paid from the Exchequer was £6,320,000.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: In view of the universal execration in which this Act is held, could not the Minister save money by abolishing it?

Oral Answers to Questions — CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.

Mr. BATEY: 20.
asked the Minister of Health the separate amounts paid by the employers, the employés, and the Treasury to the Widows, Orphans, and Old Age Contributory Pensions Fund for the year 1931 and also the balance at the end of the year?

Sir H. YOUNG: The contributions paid under the Widows, Orphans, and Old Age Contributory Pensions Acts for the year ended 31st March, 1932, amounted
to £22,880,000, of which the portions payable by the employers and employés are estimated to be £11,790,000 and £11,090,000 respectively. The amount paid from the Exchequer was £10,000,000. The accumulated funds in hand at the end of the year amounted to £40,500,000.

Mr. BATEY: In view of the fact that there is a balance of £40,000,000 in hand, does the Minister consider that he is justified in robbing unemployed people of their pension rights?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must not make a statement of that kind in a question.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH.

VACCINATION OFFICERS (REMUNERATION).

Mr. GROVES: 21.
asked the Minister of Health whether he can supply information as to the arrangements made by the various county councils in regard to fees or salaries paid to vaccination officers; whether any county councils have incorporated the post of vaccination officer with other posts such as relieving officer; and what financial arrangements have been made in such cases?

Sir H. YOUNG: I understand that, generally speaking, the county councils have continued the arrangements formerly made by boards of guardians for the remuneration of vaccination officers, and in some cases the vaccination officer still holds other posts, such as that of relieving officer. The financial arrangements made in these cases usually provide for the payment of suitable remuneration in respect of each separate office.

PUBLICATIONS (DISTRIBUTION).

Mr. J. P. MORRIS: 22.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that a copy of a book, entitled The Nomenclature of Diseases, has been sent gratis to every qualified medical man; that the price of the book is marked 5s. net and the postage cost 6d.; that the only use of the book is that of a reference book in a library; and will he, in the interests of national economy, stop this practice of sending unwanted books and publications gratis to people at the public cost?

Sir H. YOUNG: The answer to the first and second parts of the question is
in the affirmative. The cost of postage is 5d., not 6d. As regards the third part, the book is of regular and practical use to the medical profession. Successive editions have been recognised since 1869 as indispensable to accurate certification of sickness and of the causes of death. It was for this reason that steps were taken to secure that the latest edition (which supersedes an edition published in 1917) should reach the hands of every registered medical practitioner. My hon. Friend will perhaps accept my assurance that no such practice as is described in the last part of the question exists.

Mr. MORRIS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the cost of sending these books and publications amounted to over £9,500, and that such action is against the considered policy of His Majesty's Government of reducing unproductive expenditure?

Mr. SPEAKER: Mr. Edward Williams.

TUBERCULOSIS (STEVENS TREATMENT).

Mr. EDWARD WILLIAMS: 23.
asked the Minister of Health if his attention has been called to the evidence submitted to the Ministry last year of certified cases of pulmonary and other forms of tuberculosis which were speedily cured by the Stevens treatment; and if he will take steps to examine the evidence and verify the cures with a view to officially adopting this treatment for the benefit of sufferers of tuberculosis?

Sir H. YOUNG: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given on this subject to the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) on the 11th March last, of which I am sending him a copy.

LONDON REFUSE (DISPOSAL).

Mr. HICKS: 26.
asked the Minister of Health seeing that on 16th June he communicated with the Metropolitan mayors on the question of the collection and disposal of refuse, and that on 13th June Lord Jessel, President of the London Municipal Society, explained the Minister's proposals to a meeting of Municipal Reform party leaders, in addition to certain questions affecting the proposed transfer of powers from the London County Council to the Metropolitan
Borough Councils, whether the Minister communicated his policy to the London Municipal Society or Lord Jessel before officially communicating with the local authorities or with the London Labour party; and, if so, for what reason?

Sir H. YOUNG: What I have done is to request all the Metropolitan mayors to meet me in Conference on the question of London refuse, as a preliminary to the formation of a common policy. In these circumstances, the question raised by the hon. Member does not seem to me to arise.

Mr. HICKS: Do I understand, from the right hon. Gentleman's answer, that the statement was not available prior to the meeting of the Metropolitan mayors?

Sir H. YOUNG: I do not know to what statement the hon. Member is referring.

Mr. HICKS: I am referring to a statement made by Lord Jessel.

Sir H. YOUNG: I have no responsibility for any statement made by Lord Jessel.

Mr. HICKS: I am sorry to trouble the right hon. Gentleman, but is he aware that this statement was officially communicated to a meeting on the 13th, three days prior to the meeting of the Metropolitan mayors?

Sir H. YOUNG: I am not aware of that circumstance.

Oral Answers to Questions — BLIND PERSONS.

Mr. E. WILLIAMS: 24.
asked the Minister of Health if he will supply a statement of the names of the county councils and the county borough councils who have made declaration, under Section 5 of the Local Government Act, 1929, regarding domiciliary relief to blind per-sons and the gross expenditure from local authorities funds by way of addition to income of unemployable blind persons in areas which have made and areas which have not made such declaration, respectively?

Sir H. YOUNG: I will send the hon. Member a statement giving the names of these councils. I regret that the information asked for in the last part of the question is not available.

Mr. WILLIAMS: 25.
asked the Minister of Health to what branch of local expenditure such additions to blind pensions as are found necessary are debited in those areas which have not made declarations under Section 5 of the Local Government Act, 1929?

Sir H. YOUNG: Where this form of assistance is given under the Blind Persons Act, as in the cases mentioned in the last part of the answer given to the hon. Member's question of the 9th June, the expenditure is debited to the account out of which the expenses incurred under that Act are payable. In other cases the expenditure is debited to the public assistance account.

Oral Answers to Questions — RENT RESTRICTIONS ACTS.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 27.
asked the Minister of Health whether the proposals for the amendment of the Rent Restrictions Acts are now ready; and if they can be circulated for the information of Members prior to the introduction of the Bill in the autumn.

Sir H. YOUNG: The answer is "No, Sir."

Mr. WILLIAMS: Are we to understand that we are not to learn anything about the proposals to amend the Rent Restrictions Act until we return in the Autumn?

Sir H. YOUNG: Certainly I can hold out no hope at the present time of their being available to Members of the House before that time.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Could these proposals, when they are ready, be circulated to Members so that they may be able to examine them before the reassembly of Parliament?

Mr. MAXTON: Is there any certainty that the Government will be able to produce them?

Sir H. YOUNG: At the present time, as I have said in reply to the hon. Member opposite, I am unable to give any undertaking as to the time when they will be introduced.

Oral Answers to Questions — POOR LAW RELIEF (TEST WORK).

Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKE: 28.
asked the Minister of Health if his attention has
been drawn to a public statement by the chairman of the public assistance committee in Birmingham in which he explains the Order issued by the Ministry compelling men seeking relief to do navvying work without regard to their previous calling; and whether, in view of the fact that the Order when issued did not meet with the approval of the public assistance committee, he will consider the advisability of cancelling the regulation, which is causing much concern to those who are subject to its practice?

Sir H. YOUNG: My attention has not been drawn to the chairman's statement, which I assume refers to the Relief Regulation Order issued by my Department in March, 1930. That Order provides for setting to work, training or instructing able-bodied men in receipt of out-door relief. It does not specify the nature of the work, and allows considerable latitude to local authorities in making the necessary arrangements. I see no reason for withdrawing the Order.

Mr. CROOKE: Is the Minister aware that some of these men are physically unfit for the rough work that is given them; and, further, that some of them feel that the work is placed upon them as a punishment for crime, their only crime being that they are poor?

Sir H. YOUNG: As to the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, I have no information to that effect. The responsibility is, of course, entirely that of the local authority. As to the second part, I do not agree with the suggestion contained in my hon. Friend's supplementary question.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the Minister aware that, when highly skilled craftsmen are put on to this navvying work, it does them damage which cannot afterwards be so repaired as to preserve their adaptability for their ordinary calling?

Sir H. YOUNG: That no doubt would be a matter which should be considered by the local authority in determining the nature of the test or other work which they are going to apply, and I have no reason to suppose that that consideration is not present in their minds.

Mr. CROOKE: Is the Minister aware that the regulations governing this matter were issued by the Minister of Health in the late Socialist Government?

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE.

CURRENCY.

Mr. COCKS: 29.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps are being taken to reflate and expand the currency?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Major Elliot): Movements of currency are indicated in the weekly return of the Bank of England, to which I would refer the hon. Member.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the article by Sir Arthur Salter in to-day's "Times" detailing practical measures to bring this about, and will he act on it?

Major ELLIOT: The Government could not act on instructions and advice contained in any portion of a newspaper.

Mr. COCKS: Are the Government taking no steps at all?

STERLING EXCHANGE.

Mr. COCKS: 30.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the action of the Government at the present time is being directed to preventing sterling from rising or to prevent it from falling?

Major ELLIOT: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has on several occasions submitted to the House his decided view which I think met with general approval that no useful purpose would be served but that on the contrary harm might be done by Parliamentary statements upon the day to day policy pursued with regard to the sterling exchange. For the general trend of Government policy I would refer the hon. Member to the statements which have been made in the House on behalf of His Majesty's Government as to the objectives which they have in mind.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the Bank responsible for purchases and sales of sterling or is the Treasury still responsible?

Major ELLIOT: The Bank act as expert managers on behalf of the Treasury.

GOVERNMENT STOCKS (COMMISSION).

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: 31.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can state the amount of money paid by the Government in each of the post-War years in commission to bankers, brokers, and
other agents, respectively, for transactions in Government stocks, and, if possible, the names of the firms to whom such moneys have been paid and the amount in each case?

Major ELLIOT: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. DAVIES: Would it be possible for the Treasury to transact this business on their own account without handing money over to third parties?

Major ELLIOT: I do not think that arises out of the question.

Following is the answer:

The brokers to the National Debt Commissioners are Messrs. Mullens, Marshall, Steer, Lawford and Company. They are remunerated by a fixed salary borne on the Vote for the National Debt Office Subhead A. Since 1920 the payment has been £2,000 a year. So far as other Government Departments employ brokers from time to time, whether this firm or any other, the remuneration would be by commission. Commission is paid by the Treasury to all bankers and brokers in connection with the issue and conversion of Government securities at rates set out clearly on each prospectus. It is not possible to give details as it is open to every banker and broker in the country to earn commission in this way. The total payments, which vary with the number and importance of the operations, have been since 1924–25 as set out below. Particulars for earlier years would be difficult to compile.

£


1924–25
…
…
…
333,000


1925–26
…
…
…
73,000


1926–27
…
…
…
183,000


1927–28
…
…
…
710,000


1928–29
…
…
…
306,000


1929–30
…
…
…
640,000


1930–31
…
…
…
161,000


1931–32
…
…
…
19,000

BEER DUTY.

Sir WILLIAM WAYLAND: 32.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the number of standard barrels of beer brewed in May, 1931, and 1932, and the total amount of duty collected to 31st May, 1932, from the extra 31s per standard barrel of beer imposed in September, 1931?

Major ELLIOT: The figures asked for in the first part of the question are 1,498,000 standard barrels for May, 1931, and 1,247,000 for May, 1932. As regards the second part, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given on 7th June to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wycombe, namely, that it is not possible to state what addition the increased duty has produced, since this depends on what the consumption would have been had there been no increase.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

IMPORT DUTIES.

Mr. LYONS: 33.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he will state the amount of revenue received as Import Duty from the entry of typewriters into this country for the month of May, 1932?

Major ELLIOT: The approximate amount of duty on imported typewriters and parts received during the (month of May, 1932, was £1,600.

Mr. LYONS: Can the right hon. Gentleman give me any idea of the percentage of Import Duties received in respect of machines entering from Canada?

Major ELLIOT: I am afraid I should require notice of that question.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: Were a large number of typewriters placed in bond?

Major ELLIOT: I should require notice of that question.

Mr. CAPORN: 36.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware that cane used for the manufacture of baskets, furniture, and other articles is now subject to Import Duty at the same rate, namely, 20 per cent., as the baskets, furniture, etc., manufactured therefrom; and whether, in view of the fact that cane cannot be grown here or within the Empire, he will represent to the Tariff Committee that they should consider whether in the national interest the said duties require revision?

Major ELLIOT: I am aware that a duty of 20 per cent. ad valorem is charged on certain cane used for basket and furniture making. I understand that representations on the subject have already
been made to the Import Duties Advisory Committee on behalf of the trade concerned and are now under consideration.

CANADA AND GERMANY (TRADE AGREEMENT).

Mr. LYONS: 51.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs if he will now make a statement upon the recent trading agreement between Canada and Germany, and give its terms and its effect upon this country?

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): I have no information on the subject other than that which has appeared in the Press.

Mr. LYONS: In view of the seriousness of what that agreement might mean at the present time, will my right hon. Friend take steps to stop the circulation of any statement suggesting such an agreement before the Ottawa Conference?

Mr. THOMAS: It is not for me to take any steps to stop a treaty entered into between a Dominion and another country. It is for me to see what application the treaty may have to our interests, and that I am doing.

Mr. LYONS: May we have an assurance from my right hon. Friend that the reports about this matter are entirely unfounded?

Mr. THOMAS: I do not know whether they are unfounded or not. If the hon. Gentleman will convey any information to me I will have it inquired into. I have only seen, as I have said a Press statement, and, if I merely inquired into every Press statement. I should never be finished.

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: Is not that one more instance of the great importance of the Ottawa Conference?

Mr. THOMAS: Certainly.

GERMANY (BRITISH COAL QUOTA).

Mr. MITCHESON: 54.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that Germany has not fulfilled undertakings which she gave regarding British coal imports and that referring this matter to arbitration will entail delay and continued loss to the British coal industry, he will immediately utilise the machinery at his disposal for
dealing with such matters by imposing retaliatory duties under the Import Duties Act?

Mr. JOHN COLVILLE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I have nothing at present to add to the reply given to a similar question by my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight (Captain P. Macdonald) on Tuesday last.

SHIP REPAIRS.

Mr. THORNE: 55.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has any information as to the number of British ships sent to foreign shipyards for repairs; and whether he will consider the advisability of making representations in British shipowners urging the need for repairs to be done in British ports, in view of the high percentage of unemployed boilermakers and ship-repairers?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Hore-Belisha): As the hon. Member for Tyne-mouth (Mr. West Russell) was informed on the 23rd February, the information asked for in the first part of the question is not available. As regards the second part, British shipowners are, I am sure, fully alive to the desirability, wherever this may be economically possible, of having their repair work done at home, and I understand that in recent months the tendency to have ship repairs carried out here has increased to a marked extent.

Mr. DICKIE: With a view to seeing whether it is possible to assist this very hard hit industry, will the Parliamentary Secretary institute inquiries in two directions, firstly, as to the extent to which foreign countries compel their shipowners to have their repairs executed in the yards of their own nationals, and, secondly, as to the extent—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member's question is too long.

Mr. DICKIE: Surely, Mr. Speaker, it is a fair question?

Mr. SPEAKER: It is much too long as a supplementary.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the tendency of British ships being sent to foreign ports to be repaired is on the upgrade or the downgrade?

Mr. DICKIE: Will the Parliamentary Secretary inquire to what extent it would help this hard hit industry if trade union restrictions in regard to overtime were removed?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I will certainly obtain for my hon. Friend any information which he may desire and which may be in our possession. In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood), the tendency to have ships repaired abroad is diminishing.

TOMATOES (PRICES).

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 56.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the wholesale prices of English, Jersey, Dutch, and Canary tomatoes for the weeks ending 27th June, 1931, and 25th June, 1932?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I will, if I may, circulate these prices in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following are the prices:

According to the Agricultural Market Report the average wholesale prices in London of British, Channel Islands, and Dutch tomatoes for the weeks ended 24th June, 1931, and 22nd June, 1932, were as follows:


—
Week ended




24th June, 1931.
22nd June,1932.


British—
…
pence per lb.


1st quality
…
6½
10


2nd quality
…
4½
7½


Channel Islands—





1st quality
…
6
10


2nd quality
…
5½
9


Dutch—





1st quality
…
5
8½


2nd quality
…
(not quoted)
7½

The supply of Canary tomatoes is seasonal, and usually ceases from mid-June until mid-October. The average price for the week ended 10th June, 1931, was 3d. to 4d. per lb., and for the week ended 8th June, 1932, 4d to 5d per lb.

Oral Answers to Questions — SWIMMING BATHS (ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY).

Captain ERSKINE-BOLST: 35.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been drawn to
the demand made by the Excise authorities for Entertainments Duty to be paid in respect of admission to the swimming baths at Blackpool; whether such tax is demanded in respect of all swimming baths throughout the country; and, if so, since what date, and on what grounds, such charge has been made?

Major ELLIOT: Entertainments Duty is not charged in respect of payments made by bathers for admission to swimming baths either at Blackpool or elsewhere. Duty is charged, however, on payments for admission by spectators, unless such persons are in attendance upon bathers. Payments not exceeding 6d. were not chargeable with duty from 1924 until 9th November last, but since that date duty has been chargeable on payments exceeding 2d. in accordance with the provisions of the second Finance Act of 1931. The grounds on which the charge is made are that the payments are payments for admission to an entertainment, which is defined in the Finance (New Duties) Act, 1916, as including "any exhibition, performance, amusement, game or sport to which persons are admitted for payment."

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Do they charge anything for watching the bathers in the Serpentine?

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

MUSK RATS.

Mr. TOUCHE: 37.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he can give any further information as to the presence of musk rats in Surrey and as to the steps which have been taken to exterminate them?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Sir John Gilmour): Since I replied to the question put to me by my hon. Friend on 20th June on this matter, no further musk rats have been seen in this neighbourhood, although a careful watch has been kept in the locality. This would seem to indicate that this infestation is, fortunately, not of a serious character.

IMPORTED POTATOES.

Mr. HUTCHISON: 38.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he is aware that 90 tons of foreign potatoes were dumped by barge on 16th June on a dust shoot at Wennington; will he inquire
as to whether these have been taken away by the inhabitants; and, in view of the local fear that the Colorado beetle may thus be introduced into the district, will he make inquiries to see whether there is any risk of infection of any sort to existing potato crops?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I am aware of the dumping referred to and on inquiry I find that some of the potatoes were taken away from the dump by the inhabitants. Steps have been taken to ensure that the remainder of the potatoes will be so treated as to guard against the risk of the conveyance of infection to potato crops in the district. I am satisfied that there is no risk of the introduction of the Colorado beetle through the medium of these potatoes.

SMALLHOLDINGS.

Mr. GROVES: 39.
asked the Minister of Agriculture how many of the smallholdings provided under the Land Settlement Act, 1919, have since been abandoned and disposed of; and what has been the average loss incurred on each holding and the maximum loss in any one case?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Separate figures are not available relating to holdings provided under the Land Settlement (Facilities) Act, 1919. During the period 31st December, 1926, to 31st December, 1931, the total area of land acquired by councils for smallholdings prior to the passing of the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1926, and still retained by them, declined by 16,083 acres, and the number of tenants by 1,841. This decrease is mainly due to holdings being sold to the tenants, and to councils' leases expiring and not being renewed. In the latter case the smallholdings do not necessarily disappear. It is not possible to give further details without circularising all the councils concerned and I do not see my way to do this.

Mr. GROVES: 40.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether any of the smallholdings provided under the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1926, have been abandoned on account of the holders proving unsuitable or failing to fulfil the terms of their agreements; and what has been the loss involved in each case where such holdings have been disposed of?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I am not aware of any case where land acquired under the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1926, has been given up for the reasons stated, though there have no doubt been changes of tenancy owing to the unsuitability of individual tenants. Any such changes are not notified to my Department, the holdings being provided and managed by county councils or councils of county boroughs.

HARVEST (IRISH LABOURERS).

Mr. THOMAS COOK: 41.
asked the Minister of Agricuture if he is aware that a number of Irishmen are offering themselves for employment in Norfolk, to the detriment of local agricultural labourers; and whether he will take steps to see that preference is given to local wage earners?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I understand that a certain number of Irish workers are being employed by farmers in Norfolk for seasonal work. Every effort has been made by my Department in conjunction with the Ministry of Labour and with the full co-operation of the National Farmers' Union, to call the attention of farmers to the facilities offered by the Employment Exchanges for the supply from their registers of any seasonal labour required.

Mr. MAXTON: Has the right hon. Gentleman made any inquiry why farmers, in spite of his efforts, are still prepared to use Irish labour?

CATTLE DISEASE.

Lord SCONE: 43.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will state the areas in which the disease of cattle known as nervous syndrome is prevalent; and what steps are being taken to ascertain the cause, nature, and cure of this disease?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I presume that the Noble Lord refers to the disease of dairy cows to which reference has been made recently in the Press. Attention has been directed to its existence in the districts around Lechlade and in Berkshire, but it is common in many parts of the country and abroad. As regards the second part of the question, this disease condition formed the subject of a question by the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) on 21st June, and I would refer the Noble Lord to the reply given thereto, of which I am sending him a copy.

HORTICULTURAL PRODUCTS ACT.

Mr. PALMER: 44.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he can give any information regarding the standard of wages paid in industries affected by the Horticultural Products Act, and if the increased prices received for the products have been reflected in increased wages paid in the industries?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Workers employed in England and Wales in the production of the commodities set out in the Schedule of the Horticultural Products Act are entitled to be paid wages at not less than the minimum rates prescribed in Orders made under the Agricultural Wages (Regulation) Act. I am, however, unable to say what are the standard wages actually paid. In reply to the last part of the hon. Member's question, the information which reaches me indicates that the effect of the Act of last year has been to stimulate considerably horticultural production and, therefore, employment in Great Britain.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Is it true to say that the piece prices received for the productions have been reflected in increased wages and not in the increase of the labour?

Sir J. GILMOUR: All I can say is that these wages are under proper regulation and can be adjusted.

Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: Is it not a fact that large numbers of workers in this industry were being dismissed every day until the duties were imposed?

PATRINGTON FARM SETTLEMENT.

Mr. SAVERY (for Major CARVER): 47.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether the five farms comprising the Patrington farm settlement are now all let to farmers by the Commissioners of Crown Lands; if not, whether the Crown is farming any of them itself; and what is the amount of any accumulated loss in the accounts of this settlement since 31st March, 1926, when it amounted to £100,457?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The final loss on the Patrington Farm Settlement up to 5th April, 1927, when the Ministry's lease was surrendered to the Commissioners of Crown Lands, was, excluding net capital loss on property handed back to
the Commissioners, £121,574. Of the five farms surrendered fay the Ministry to the Commissioners, three have been let and the remaining two have been since the date mentioned, and are still, farmed by the Crown. Subject to final examination of the accounts for 1932 the loss on the working of these two farms from 5th April, 1927, to 31st March, 1932, amounted to £21,039.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

Mr. COCKS: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the trade depression, he will approach the Soviet Government with a view to arranging for the visit of a British economic mission to Russia for the purpose of studying the work of industrial reconstruction proceeding in that country, and for the visit of a Soviet economic mission to this country for the purpose of giving information to the British people on the subject of national planning and reconstruction?

The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Mr. Baldwin): No, Sir.

Mr. COCKS: Is it not worth while ascertaining the facts about this great social experiment?

Mr. BALDWIN: I cannot sec that the study of an industrial system based on industrial conscription has anything to teach this country.

Oral Answers to Questions — IMPERIAL ECONOMIC CONFERENCE.

TIMBER.

Brigadier - General CLIFTON BROWN: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will give an assurance that in any negotiations with the Dominions and Colonies at Ottawa with reference to imports of timber, including soft woods, into this country, due regard will be had to developing and maintaining the production of our home-grown timber; and whether the producers and users of homegrown timber will have equal representation with timber merchants on the delegation going to Ottawa?

Mr. BALDWIN: As regards the first part of the question, the interests to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers will certainly be kept in mind. As re-
gards the second part, it is, I think, for the producers and users of home-grown timber to decide themselves, in consultation with the Industrial Advisers who will accompany the United Kingdom delegation, whether they should be specially represented at Ottawa.

Brigadier-General BROWN: Does my right hon. Friend realise that the representatives of the timber merchants who are going over are largely interested in the Russian and Scandinavian trade and that their interests must be antagonistic to Dominion and Home trade, and that the Forestry Commissioners wish to put their point of view on behalf of British producers and British users of homegrown timber?

Mr. BALDWIN: Yes, sir, that is the case I believe, and it is all the more reason why those who are directly interested in the home timber trade and the forms of timber referred to in the question should take the steps which I suggest.

PREFRRENTIAL TARIFFS.

Major PROCTER: 50.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if the Government has formulated a definite Colonial trade policy for submission to the Ottawa Conference; and if he is prepared to make a statement before the Recess?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir Robert Hamilton): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies has already said, in his answer of the 27th April to the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Wight (Captain P. Macdonald), of which I am sending the hon. and gallant Member a copy, that he has been in consultation with all the Colonial Governments and with representatives in this country of the various Colonial trade interests. As a result of these discussions a number of proposals have already been submitted to the Dominion Governments regarding the grant of preference to the Colonial Empire, and at the same time the Dominion Governments have been invited to state what adjustments of Colonial Customs tariffs would be of real value to them.

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA (NATIVE RESERVES).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 48.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies
whether any conclusion has yet been reached as to native rights in land or royalties in those parts of the reserves in Kenya which are being prospected for gold?

Sir R. HAMILTON: The position has been explained in the replies returned to the question asked by the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Joel) on the 18th of February, of which I am sending the right hon. and gallant Member a copy, and to his own question of the 24th February. I can add nothing to those answers.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the matter still under consideration and have any conclusions been arrived at yet?

Sir R. HAMILTON: As I stated in the answer to a former question of the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Joel), the Government are safeguarding the interests of the natives to the fullest extent.

Oral Answers to Questions — ZAMBESI BRIDGE.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 49.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (how many natives are now employed on the Zambesi bridge and approaches; and what steps are being taken by his Department to supervise the recruiting and employment of such natives and to safeguard their health?

Sir R. HAMILTON: The welfare of natives employed on the Zambesi bridge and approaches is superintended by the supervisor of labour, who is a medical officer seconded from the Nyasaland Government service. Monthly reports are received from him and scrutinised by the administrative and medical staff of the Colonial Office. The supervisor's report for the month ended 30th April returned 2,929 natives employed. Their recruitment is supervised by the Portuguese authorities, but many of the natives apply for work in person.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRISH FREE STATE (LAND ANNUITIES).

Mr. MANDER: 52.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs the present position with regard to the payment of the Irish land annuities?

Mr. THOMAS: No payment in respect of the land annuities has been received from the Irish Free State Government to
date. I shall submit to the House on Monday next proposals for dealing with the situation.

Oral Answers to Questions — HYDE PARK (MOTOR COACHES).

Sir BASIL PETO: 53.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether he is aware that motor coaches now use Hyde Park; whether these vehicles are allowed there and, particularly, whether they are allowed to park in the vicinity of the Achilles statue; and if he will state what, if any, new regulations with regard to traffic in the park have been made in this connection?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Ormsby - Gore): Motor coaches carrying sightseers are allowed to enter Hyde Park on payment of a fee, but they are not allowed to park. There has been no recent alteration in the regulations for these coaches. The only coaches allowed to park near the Achilles statue are those coming to the park to carry bandsmen with their instruments to the bandstand.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

FORESTRY COMMISSIONERS TRANSACTIONS.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: 57.
asked the hon. and gallant Member for Rye as representing the Forestry Commissioners, whether the Forestry Commissioners have acquired sheep grazings and also arable lands in Scotland on condition that the subjects are to be used for afforestation purposes only, or whether the Government propose to create holdings under the Small Landholders Acts on the grazing and other lands so acquired by the Commissioners?

Colonel Sir GEORGE COURTHOPE (Forestry Commissioner): The Forestry Commissioners have acquired sheep grazings and arable lands in Scotland. The grazings are used partly for afforestation and partly for sheep. Arable land has been used for the formation of 298 forest workers' holdings. The Commissioners cannot create holdings under the Small Landowners Acts, but areas suitable for this purpose are offered to and sometimes accepted by the Department of Agriculture for Scotland.

Mr. MACLEAN: 58.
asked the hon. and gallant Member for Rye as representing
the Forestry Commissioners the number of sheep of all classes on lands in Scotland acquired for afforestation; the total sum paid by the State for sheep taken over in Scotland by the Forestry Commissioners; the total amount realised by the Commissioners from all sales of such sheep stock; and the approximate value of the sheep stock still unsold?

Sir G. COURTHOPE: The Forestry Commissioners have taken over 26,756 sheep in Scotland for £88,171. £47,828 has been realised from sales of sheep and the approximate value of the sheep stock in hand is £21,000. On land owned and let to tenants by the Commissioners there are approximately 25,000 sheep.

Sir JAMES DUNCAN MILLAR: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman state the loss to the taxpayer arising from those transactions?

Sir G. COURTHOPE: No, Sir. I should require notice of that question.

Mr. MACLEAN: 59.
asked the hon. and gallant Member for Rye, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, with regard to the acquisition by the Forestry Commissioners of part of the lands of Kirk-ton, Balquidder, Perthshire, for afforestation purposes, and the purchase of ewe hoggs from the outgoing tenant of the farm of Kirkton at £4 6s. per head, which subsequently realised in the market only 27s. 3d. per head, whether he can state the total loss involved in that matter and how much of the loss is borne by the Government?

Sir G. COURTHOPE: The Forestry Commissioners took no part in the transaction and of course incurred no loss.

Mr. RHYS: Can my hon. and gallant Friend say whether ewe hoggs should be rendered in English as sheep or pigs?

EDUCATIONAL CURRICULUM.

Lord SCONE: 64.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the names of those responsible for drawing up the Scottish educational curriculum and how often they meet to consider whether that curriculum is in need of alteration?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): The general instructions as to the curriculum which are contained in the Codes and
Circulars issued from time to time as occasion requires, are based upon recommendations from the official advisers of the Department. The Secretary of State for Scotland in his capacity as Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education in Scotland is responsible for these instructions. The second part of the question does not, therefore, arise.

GAELIC.

Lord SCONE: 65.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of schools in which Gaelic is being taught; and what steps he is taking to increase the number of such schools?

Mr. SKELTON: In the year 1930–31 Gaelic was taught in 293 schools. Section 6 (1) (a) of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1918, requires education authorities to make adequate provision for teaching Gaelic in Gaelic-speaking areas, and Article 16 (vi) of the Day School Code provides that in such areas the schemes of work should make reasonable provision for the instruction of Gaelic-speaking children in their native tongue. The Department receive regular reports from His Majesty's Inspectors of Schools upon the steps taken by education authorities to comply with these requirements, and papers in Gaelic are set at the annual Leaving Certificate Examination. The number of schools in which Gaelic is taught has risen steadily during recent years.

Mr. HICKS: Can the hon. Member explain why?

Mr. SKELTON: Because I think, generally speaking, education authorities are well alert to the desirability of keeping alive this language.

Sir W. WAYLAND: May I ask why money should be expended upon the propagation of dead languages like Gaelic and Celtic?

Mr. SKELTON: May I say to my hon. Friend that each part of his proposition is incorrect. In the first place, the Gaelic language is not dead, and in the second place its teaching does not involve extra expenditure, but only the selection in schools where it is necessary of bi-lingual teachers.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is the hon. Member aware that there are two professors of Gaelic in the Paris University, one a Greek scholar, who says that Gaelic is the finer language of the two?

Oral Answers to Questions — HIGH COURT JUDGES

Mr. CAPORN: 61.
asked the Attorney-General whether he is aware of the hardship caused to many persons by the delay in the trial of cases in the King's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice; and whether the Government will take the necessary action by the appointment of more judges or otherwise to ensure that all cases in this division have a reasonable chance of being tried during the law term following that during which they are entered for trial?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip): There are 18 judges in the King's Bench Division, the full number allowed under the existing Statute, and every possible effort is made to avoid any delay in the trial of actions. I do not think that legislation authorising the appointment of more judges involving an additional outlay of public money would be in accordance with the general desire of the House. I shall be happy to receive any other suggestions which my hon. and learned Friend can make to secure his object.

Sir P. HARRIS: Could not the delay be avoided by the judges sitting on Saturdays?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: That suggestion has often been considered, but it has not been found advisable in the interests of litigants.

Mr. CAPORN: Does the Attorney-General not consider that the object set out in the question is a desirable one?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Most desirable.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE (MOSLEM SUPREME COUNCIL).

Major PROCTER: 66.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if the office of president of the Moslem Supreme (Shari's) council in Palestine is to be excluded from the electoral test at the forthcoming election for the Moslem Supreme Council; and, if so, will he state the reason?

Sir R. HAMILTON: The High Commissioner for Palestine is at present in consultation with representative Moslems On the question of the amendment of the
Supreme Council Electoral Regulations with a view to facilitating the election of a new council. Until the result of these discussions is known I am unable to say whether the office of president will be affected.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

TERRITORIAL ARMY (CAMPS).

Mr. STOURTON: 67.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if, in view of the detrimental effect on recruiting for the Territorial Army caused by the abandonment of camp training for 1932, he will give an assurance that it is the policy of the Government to see that the usual 14 days' training is arranged for next year?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Duff Cooper): There is no change in the policy which I announced in reply to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Sir R. Blaker) on 24th November last, when I stated that there is no intention of suspending annual camps in 1933.

CLOTHING FACTORY, PIMLICO.

Mr. HICKS: 68.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether the Army Clothing Factory, Pimlico, has now been closed down; if so, will he state the number of employés who have been discharged and the number who have been found employment; and whether any have transferred to Didcot?

Mr. COOPER: This establishment has not yet been closed down. The number of workers discharged from the factory since the beginning of December, 1931, is 392. I understand that the number of workers placed in employment by the Ministry of Labour is 57, and that 56 others have passed from that Department's registers into employment. None of the employés have yet been transferred to Didcot.

Brigadier-General NATION: Can the hon. Member say what the total saving per annum is expected to be from this reduction?

Mr. COOPER: I have given the figure frequently in reply to questions, but I cannot remember it at the moment.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA (OFFICERS' TRAVELLING ALLOWANCE).

Mr. TOUCHE: 69.
asked the Secretary of State for India if he is aware that the rate of travelling allowance for officers in the Indian political service has been reduced and that the reduced rate has been made retrospective for six months, with the result that officers have been called upon to refund considerable sums; and as, having regard to the cuts in pay of these officers, this has caused hardship to many of them, will he take steps to ensure that the retrospective part of the order is not enforced?

The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Sir Samuel Hoare): It is within the competence of the Government of India to fix rates of travelling allowance for officers serving in India. I have no information as to the reduction in the rates for officers of the Indian Political Department referred to by my hon. Friend, but I am making inquiry and will inform him of the result.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is it not very unfair to make a claim like this retrospective?

Sir S. HOARE: I have said that I am making inquiries.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA.

BOXER INDEMNITY.

Mr. MANDER: 70.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the £11,000,000 of British money, which under the Boxer Indemnity Agreement was to become an endowment available for educational purposes in China, is being expended as promised, in view of the fact that the Government of China has ignored the request made by the Board of Trustees that documents entitling them to the interest or amortisation as specified in the agreement should be given to them?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Eden): My information is that the money is being expended in a proper manner both by the Board of Trustees in China and by the London Purchasing Commission, but I understand that, beyond the issue of certain regulations by the Chinese Ministry of Railways, adequate arrange-
ments have not yet been elaborated between the Chinese Government and the Board of Trustees for ensuring that the sums so expended will produce a revenue available for educational purposes.

Mr. MANDER: Will the hon. Member take care to see that the Chinese Government carry out their obligations to this country in this matter?

Mr. EDEN: The hon. Member will appreciate that it is primarily a matter for the Board of Trustees of the Chinese Government and not for His Majesty's Government.

Mr. MANDER: Were not certain promises made to this House when the Bill was passing as to the way in which the money would be spent?

Mr. EDEN: I will do my best to see that the promises made are kept.

MARITIME CUSTOMS.

Mr. MANDER: 71.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is the policy of the Government to maintain the agreement with regard to the independence of the Manchuria Customs of 1907: and what steps are being taken to that end in view of the present action of Japan?

Mr. EDEN: My hon. Friend is presumably referring to the Sino-Japanese Agreement regarding the Chinese Maritime Customs Office at Dairen. His Majesty's Government have expressed to the Japanese Government the hope that they will not countenance any departure from it which might impair the foreign interests involved in the Customs service or complicate a solution of the Manchurian dispute.

Mr. MANDER: In this case will the hon. Member keep the Japanese Government up to their international obligations?

Oral Answers to Questions — STEAMSHIP "BRITISH SOVEREIGN" (ARRESTS, ALGIERS).

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: 72.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the circumstances attending the recent arrest in Algiers of the second and fourth engineer officers of the steamship "British Sovereign"; and whether
representations have been made to the French authorities protesting against the treatment received by these officers?

Mr. EDEN: My attention has been drawn to this matter and I am asking His Majesty's Consul-General at Algiers for a report. On its receipt I will consider whether any action is called for.

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: Can the hon. Member say whether steps have been taken to prevent a recurrence of the really abominable treatment meted out to our nationals, which cannot be justified in any circumstances?

Mr. EDEN: I must first ascertain the facts.

Oral Answers to Questions — FRENCH FOREIGN LEGION (BRITISH SUBJECT'S DEATH).

Mr. LAWSON: 73.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that a youth named John Lambton, who had joined the Foreign Legion before he was 18 years of age and whose parents live at Chester-le-Street, Durham, was reported as killed while on sentry duty in Fez; that the only communication the parents have had on the matter has been from the British Consul, but that there has been no word from the French authorities as to the manner of death or place of burial; and whether he will take steps to ascertain the facts about this youth's death, place of burial, and personal belongings left, or any pension or posthumous decoration to which-his parents may be entitled?

Mr. EDEN: I have received no information regarding this case, but I am calling for a report on it from the British Vice-Consul at Fez.

Oral Answers to Questions — RECEIPT STAMPS.

Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKE (for Mr. SALT): 62.
asked the Postmaster-General if, in the accounts of his Department, any sum is assessed as revenue received from the sale of stamps which are used for the purpose of acknowledging the receipts of payments of £2 and upwards; and, if so, what amount representing this source of revenue is paid annually to the Inland Revenue?

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Graham White): Yes,
Sir; the annual payment by the Post Office to the Inland Revenue on this account is at present about £2,300,000.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (ADMIRALTY).

Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKE (for Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-D0YLE): 74.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what will be the approximate maximum saving during the current financial year resulting from the reorganisation of the secretary's and accountant's departments at the Admiralty?

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Sir Bolton Eyres Monsell): The maximum saving on the provision in the Estimates resulting from this reorganisation cannot as yet be accurately estimated, but is not likely to fall short of £8,000 during the current financial year.

Oral Answers to Questions — LAUSANNE CONFERENCE.

Mr. LANSBURY: (by Private Notice) asked the Lord President of the Council whether he is in a position to give the House the latest information as to what results have been reached at Lausanne?

Mr. BALDWIN: I will give the House the latest information that I have. It was announced last night at Lausanne that the heads of the Delegations of the six inviting Powers had decided yesterday, at the suggestion of the President of the Conference, to set up a Bureau composed of the President and one representative of each Delegation of the inviting Powers to examine the present position on the subject of reparations in the light of the preliminary exploration that had already been carried out at Lausanne. The Bureau met at once, and eat until an early hour this morning. It resumed its deliberations at 10.30 this morning to continue its work, and a message received from the Prime Minister at noon said that it was still sitting.
A second decision taken by these six inviting Powers yesterday afternoon was that their Ministers of Commerce or the Latters' representatives should meet together to consider certain questions connected with the second part of the work of the Lausanne Conference, namely:" The measures necessary to solve the
other economic and financial difficulties which are responsible for and may prolong the present world crisis," in preparation for the wider Conference which will consider these questions in the near future. A first meeting was held last might, at which agreement was reached on the subjects under discussion. The meeting was resumed at noon to-day for the purpose of agreeing upon their report.

Mr. LANSBURY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will consider publishing an official statement should any decisions be arrived at over the week-end, so that the public may have definite information on the decisions which may be taken?

Mr. BALDWIN: This is the latest news I have been able to get, and, if any further news comes through before the House rises to-morrow, I will see that it is communicated. I will take the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman into consideration.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. LANSBURY: May I ask the Lord President of the Council the business for next week, and, if possible, when the House will adjourn for the Summer Recess?

Mr. BALDWIN: I expect that I shall adjourn before the House. The business for next week is:
Monday: Committee stage of a Ways and Means Resolution relating to the Irish Free State (Special Duties) Bill, and a Motion to approve the Hops Marketing Scheme, made under the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1931.
I may say that the Ways and Means Resolution will be on the Order Paper to-morrow, and it will give the House all the information that they will require for the Debate on Monday.
Tuesday: Supply, Committee [18th allotted day]. Vote for the Department of Mines; Ways and Means Resolution [4th July], Report stage; Motion to approve No. 2 Order made under the Import Duties Act, 1932.
Wednesday: Supply, Committee [19th allotted day].
If there is time other Orders will be taken.
The Vote to be considered on Wednesday and the business for Thursday and Friday will be announced later.

Mr. MAXTON: Do I understand that there will be no other White Paper or Memorandum or any other document issued on the Irish Free State matter?

Mr. BALDWIN: That is so.

Mr. LANSBURY: It may perhaps have slipped the memory of the Lord President of the Council, but there was a paper issued and signed by the right hon. and gallant Member for Ripon (Major Hills) and a representative of the Irish Free State dealing with annuities. I do not know whether this is still available.

Mr. BALDWIN: I think that has been published already. It is another paper.

Mr. MAXTON: It is already in the Vote Office. With reference to the proposed legislation, I should imagine that the House would require some calculations, some statement, as to how the Government arrive at the sums which they are proposing in the Financial Resolution.

Mr. BALDWIN: I think that matter will be made quite clear. The House will have available as much—perhaps more—information in the Financial Resolution in regard to this matter as they have on any other Bill.

Mr. LANSBURY: I understand that on Monday and Tuesday the House is to consider the Ways and Means Resolution?

Mr. BALDWIN: Yes.

Mr. LANSBURY: May I ask when the right hon. Gentleman will be in a position to tell us when the other stages of the Bill will be considered, when the Bill founded on the Ways and Means Resolution will be brought in?

Mr. BALDWIN: The Bill will be printed the moment the Resolution has been reported, and I will give the right hon. Gentleman and the House the information they desire at the earliest moment possible. The House must recognise that, if we are to rise as we hope before too long, there is some little difficulty in adjusting all the remaining business, but we will do our best to meet the convenience of the House.

Mr. BUCHANAN: It must be remembered that to-morrow, Friday, is a short
day, and some hon. Members who have engagements during the week-end may have to leave before they get a copy of the Financial Resolution, and, therefore, may not be able to table Amendments. Could the right hon. Gentleman arrange that the Resolution is available for hon. Members to-night, so as to enable hon. Members to put down Amendments.

Mr. BALDWIN: I always try to do what I can to meet the convenience of

Members, but I am afraid that I cannot promise that.

Motion made, and Question put,
That other Government Business have precedence this day of the Business of Supply, and that the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Baldwin.]

The House divided: Ayes, 259; Noes, 34.

Division No. 269.]
AYES.
[3.48 p.m.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Lees-Jones, John


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Erskine, Lard (Weston-super-Mare)
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Albery, Irving James
Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Levy, Thomas


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)
Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Lewis, Oswald


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Liddall, Walter S.


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Lindsay, Noel Ker


Aske, Sir Robert William
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Llewellyn-Jones. Frederick


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J.(Kent, Dover)
Fremantle, Sir Francis
Lyons, Abraham Montagu


Atholl, Duchess of
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Mabane, William


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Gibson, Charles Granville
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Gillett, Sir George Masterman
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.


Barton. Capt. Basil Kelsey
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
McKeag, William


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Glossop, C. W. H.
McKie, John Hamilton


Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
McLean, Major Alan


Bernays, Robert
Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Goff, Sir Park
Macmillan, Maurice Harold


Blindell, James
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Macpherson, Rt. Hon James I.


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Gower, Sir Robert
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Magnay, Thomas


Broadbent, Colonel John
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Graves, Marjorie
Mander, Geoffrey le M.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks., Newb'y)
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Marsden, Commander Arthur


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hales, Harold K.
Martin, Thomas B.


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Hanley, Dennis A.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Castlereagh, Viscount
Harbord, Arthur
Millar, Sir James Duncan


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Harris, Sir Percy
Mills, Major J. D. Forest)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R.(Prtsmth., S.)
Hartland, George A.
Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)


Chalmers, John Rutherford
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Mitcheson, G. G.


Chotzner, Alfred James
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Molson, A. Hugh Eisdale


Clayton, Dr. George C.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Hepworth, Joseph
Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Morgan, Robert H.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hoare Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)


Colville, John
Holdsworth, Herbert
Morris, Rhys Hopkin (Cardigan)


Conant, R. J. E.
Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)
Moss, Captain H. J.


Cook, Thomas A.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Muirhead, Major A. J.


Cooke, Douglas
Hornby, Frank
Munro, Patrick


Cooper, A. Duff
Horsbrugh, Florence
Nail-Cain, Arthur Ronald N.


Copeland, Ida
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Nathan, Major H. L.


Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Newton, Sir Douglas George C.


Cranborne, Viscount
Hurd, Sir Percy
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd)
Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)


Crooke, J. Smedley
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Nunn, William


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.


Curry, A. C.
Janner, Barnett
Palmer, Francis Noel


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Peake, Captain Osbert


Davison, Sir William Henry
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Pearson, William G.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Peters, Or. Sidney John


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Ker, J. Campbell
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)


Dickie, John P.
Kimball, Lawrence
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.


Donner, P. W.
Kirkpatrick, William M.
Power, Sir John Cecil


Duggan, Hubert John
Knebworth, Viscount
Procter, Major Henry Adam


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Knight, Holford
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)


Dunglass, Lord
Knox, Sir Alfred
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Eastwood, John Francis
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Ramsden, E.


Eden, Robert Anthony
Latham, Sir Herbert Paul
Rankin, Robert


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Law, Sir Alfred
Ratcliffe, Arthur


Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Leckie, J. A.
Rea, Walter Russell


Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Reid, David D, (County Down)


Remer, John R.
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Reynolds, Col. Sir James Philip
Spears, Brigadier-Genera) Edward L.
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Robinson, John Roland
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


Rosbotham, S. T.
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Wayland, Sir William A.


Ross, Ronald D.
Stones, James
Weymouth, Viscount


Runge, Norah Cecil
Storey, Samuel
White, Henry Graham


Rutherford, Sir John Hugo
Stourton, Hon. John J.
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Salmon, Major Isidore
Strauss, Edward A.
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)
Strickland, Captain W. F.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Savery, Samuel Servington
Sugden, sir Wilfrid Hart
Womersley, Walter James


Scone, Lord
Summersby, Charles H.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Selley, Harry R.
Sutcliffe, Harold
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Band)


Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Tate, Mavis Constance
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. (P'dd'gt'n, S.)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Simmonds, Oliver Edwin
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)



Skelton, Archibald Noel
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)
Sir Frederick Thomson and Captain


Somervell, Donald Bradley
Touche, Gordon Cosmo
Austin Hudson.


Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)



NOES.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Grundy, Thomas W.
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)


Batey, Joseph
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hicks, Ernest George
Parkinson. John Allen


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Hirst, George Henry
Price, Gabriel


Buchanan, George
Jenkins, Sir William
Thorne, William James


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Tinker, John Joseph


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Dagger, George
Kirkwood, David
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Edwards, Charles
Lawson, John James
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Logan, David Gilbert



Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Lunn, William
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. John and Mr. Groves.


Question put, and agreed to.

MESSAGE PROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

London County Council (Money) Bill, without Amendment.

Birkenhead Corporation Bill, with Amendments.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Leven Burgh Extension."—[Leven Burgh Extension Order Confirmation Bill [Lords].]

LEVEN BURGH EXTENSION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [Lords]

Read the First time; and ordered (under Section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) to be considered To-morrow.

RATING AND VALUATION (No. 2) BILL [Lords].

Reported, without Amendment, from Standing Committee C.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of Proceedings to be printed.

Bill, not amended (in the Standing Committee), to be considered To-morrow.

BILLS REPORTED.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (ELHAM VALLEY WATER AND HERTS AND ESSEX WATER) BILL [Lords].

Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (HAILSHAM WATER) BILL [Lords].

Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (HENLEY-ON-THAMES WATER) BILL [Lords].

Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (HERTFORD) BILL [Lords]

Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

BOURNEMOUTH, POOLE, AND CHRISTCHUBCH ELECTRICITY BILL [Lords].

Reported, with Amendments [Title amended]; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

EAST INDIA REVENUES (CONTRI BUTION TOWARDS COST OF WAR).

The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Sir Samuel Hoare): I beg to move,
Whereas, by Resolutions passed on the 16th September and 26th November, 1914, respectively, this House consented to the charge upon Indian revenues, subject to certain conditions, of the ordinary pay and other ordinary charges of British and Indian troops despatched out of India for service in the Great War, as well as the ordinary charges of any vessels belonging to the Government of India that might be employed in those expeditions:
And whereas, by a Resolution passed on the 14th March, 1917, this House consented to a contribution of £100,000,000 charged upon the revenues of India towards the expenses of the War:
And whereas the Government of India, desirous of affording further assistance to His Majesty's Government, provisionally and subject to the consent of this House met out of the revenues of India in 1918–19, with the concurrence of their Legislative Council, further extraordinary charges in respect of the Indian troops employed in the War to the extent of £13,600,000:
And whereas the Government of India are desirous of bearing finally such further extraordinary charges.
That this House consents that the extraordinary charges of £13,600,000 aforesaid shall be borne by Indian revenues.
This looks a very formidable Resolution. I can, however, assure the House that it is nothing more than an account-keeping transaction. It does not raise any big constitutional issue; it merely regularises an account-keeping transaction which many of us would have hoped might have been regularised a good many years ago. I will explain how this transaction arose, and, secondly, why it is only now that we are regularising it. The constitutional position with the revenues of India is that no part of those revenues can be appropriated without the approval of the Secretary of State in Council. Secondly, no charge can fall upon Indian revenues for the use of Indian troops outside India without the express approval by resolution of this House. That is the constitutional position.
4.0 p.m.
Let me come to the historical events that have led up to this Resolution, During the War India made very substantial and generous contributions to the War effort of the Empire. In the first
year of the War India agreed to meet the expenses of the Indian units that were serving outside India, so far as the normal expenditure of those units went. So far as the additional expenditure went, that is to say the War expenditure outside the normal upkeep of the units, that expenditure in 1914 still fell upon the Imperial Exchequer. Then, as the need of further help increased during the War, India generously responded, on more occasions than one. In 1917 India made a free gift of no less than £100,000,000 to the Imperial Exchequer for the needs of the War. Again in the following year India undertook to carry a series of additional war expenses over and above the normal expenses that it had undertaken to meet in 1914, and it was estimated in 1918 that this additional gift from India would probably amount to no less than a further £45,000,000, over and above the,£100,000,000 of the original free gift; but when this additional gift approximating £45,000,000 was promised certain conditions were attached. It was a gift the extent of which obviously depended upon the length of the War, and when it was made, it was not known that the War was going to end in quite a few months. Again, India, rightly, made other reservations, namely, that if the economic situation made it impossible for India to meet the full amount, there must be an opportunity for reconsideration, and, further, if there was serious trouble on the frontier, and particularly a war with Afghanistan, that again was a condition that would have to be taken into account.
In actual practice all those three contingencies eventuated. The War ended almost at once, we were unfortunately involved in another war with Afghanistan, and India was further faced with a very serious economic situation. But at the time when the War ended a sum of £13,600,000 had already been paid by the Government of India towards the gift that had been estimated at £45,000,000. At the end of the War, therefore, £13,600,000 had been paid, as the Government of India thought, on account of the larger gift of £45,000,000 that had been promised. But at that time there was a whole series of counterclaims made by various Departments here, particularly the War Office, against the Government of India.
The result was that whilst the Government of India regarded the payment of £13,600,000 as a first instalment of the free gift of £45,000,000, the Departments here regarded it as the first instalment of the debts that were due to London, and for the last 12 or 13 years there has been a very complicated negotiation—I would almost say controversy—going on between the British Departments in Whitehall and the India Office and the Government of India; and on that account, whilst this £13,600,000 had actually been paid, it was not possible to come to this House for final ratification of the transaction, owing to the fact that there were big issues between the Departments still unsettled. I am glad to say to-day that these obstacles have now been removed. In the first place, the rival claims of a general character between the Departments in Whitehall and the Government of India have been settled by adopting, as I would say, the very sensible arrangement of a clean slate. Each side, seeing that there was not much in it between the two, have washed their claims out.
But there was another complication, in addition to the general claims, that also delayed the ratification of this transaction. In addition to the general wartime negotiations between the various Departments, there was the very difficult question of what is called the capitation grant,, that is to say, the amount that India pays for the training of the British troops which form a part of the Indian garrison. That question has raised a very long controversy between the War Office and the Air Ministry, on the one hand, and the Government of India on the other. The War Office and the Air Ministry have taken the view that India was paying too little for the training of the British troops serving in India. India, on the other hand, took the view that it was not paying too little and that there were counter-claims against Great Britain, and that in the view of Indians, India was taking too large a share of Imperial defence.
It has now been agreed by the Government of India and my Council that these conflicting claims and others of a similar nature should be referred to an independent tribunal for investigation. The tribunal will be judicial in character and will consist of two members nominated by each party and a chairman.
We are fortunate in having secured, as its chairman,, Sir Robert Garran, for many years Solicitor-General to the Commonwealth Government of Australia. It is expected that the tribunal will meet in November. Its proceedings will, as must necessarily be the case, be confidential, and it will be advisory. It is, however, confidently hoped that in the light of its advice a settlement that will commend itself in all quarters as just and honourable may be reached on the vexed questions referred to it. That is to say, we hope we have now removed the second obstacle in the way of the ratification of the transaction about which I am speaking. It is, therefore,, now possible for the House finally to pass this Resolution and authorise the expenditure that has already been made and, once and for all, put an end to a transaction that has been dragging on for many more years than we should have hoped.
For the foregoing reasons, I move that this House consent to the treatment, as a final charge against Indian revenues, of the gift of £13,600,000 provisionally made by the Government of India in 1918–19. This sum takes no account of additional amounts for which India has accepted liability in order to secure the settlement, but as against these may reasonably be set certain sums accruing to Indian revenues in connection with the War.

Mr. ATTLEE: I think the right hon. Gentleman may be congratulated on having described to us a rather complicated financial problem in a very few words. One has, of course, met this question, or parts of it, before. Indeed, the whole question of the financial relationships of this country and India is one which obviously will have to be reconsidered before very long. As I understand it, this is not a matter at the present time of asking India to pay anything, but is in fact an auditing transaction merely, to set India right, because this House is charged with the duty of seeing that the revenues of India are not expended for other than Indian purposes. We on this side of the House agree that this is a fair settlement, and I think it is highly desirable that a settlement should be come to at this juncture. I do not want to go into the matter at any length, but I think one should recall the very great services of India during
the Great War and the very great generosity of her contributions, both in money and in men.
I confess that I have never been altogether happy at the voluntary contributions made to the War by parts of the Empire that have not got self-government. It is quite true that these gifts were approved at the time in India. They were approved in 1920 by the Legislative Council, on which certain Indians sat, but in fact these transactions took place before there was anything like self-government in India. It is more or less a matter of the past, but it was considered that the Indian Legislature was sufficiently representative of the Indian people to make a gift of £100,000,000 to assist the cause of the British Empire during the War, and I think that should be borne in mind by those who sometimes deny the right of Indians to speak for India.
There are two other points that I should like to make. I am glad that the capitation grant question is being referred to what amounts to arbitration, because that is a matter which has hung on too long, and should be got out of the way. While I am glad that this matter should be got out of the way, it does not really, as, of course, the right hon. Gentleman knows, end the question of the liability of this country and of India for the defence of India. When I served on the Indian Statutory Commission we had to consider that matter at some length. I am bound to say that I have always considered that on the whole India has been rather too much charged with her own defence, as compared with other units of the British Empire other than this country, and at the time when the whole question of our relationships with the Indian Government is being considered, there is urgent need that the whole question of Imperial defence responsibilities should be discussed.
It is my view that while, as a result of history and so on, this country has always borne the lion's share of the defence of the British Empire, India has borne a very large share of her own, and sometimes India has had to bear defence expenses that were caused not directly in her interests but occasioned because she was a member of the British Empire, and a vulnerable part of the Empire. I would, therefore, say that while we
approve this Resolution, we hope the Government will, at an early date, take into consideration the whole question of the financial side of Imperial defence. I think they will have to do it when they are trying to deal with the new Constitution for India, and I hope they will take that further, and consider the whole matter from the point of view of all the units of the British Empire. For our part, we consider that the setting off of these various claims which have hung on for so long is satisfactory, that India has been fairly treated, and that, therefore, this Resolution ought to be approved.

Earl WINTERTON: I do not wish to delay these proceedings, after the very pleasant speech to which we have just listened from the Front Opposition Bench and the very clear and succinct account given by the Secretary of State for India of this matter. The hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) has mentioned, as he was entitled to do, certain other matters which I do not think directly arise on this occasion, though no doubt they will have to be discussed in the future. These are matters touching a very high question of policy which have been discussed by people in this country for the last 100 years, namely, the relationship between the Government of India and the Government of this country. I was glad that the hon. Member referred, as also did the Secretary of State, to India's contribution during the War. No one in any quarter of the House would wish to belittle that contribution. I believe that, for example, in some parts of the Punjab, the contribution in men to the fighting forces was greater than in any other part of the Empire where voluntary service existed, and I am told on good authority it was greater even than the contribution in some places where there was compulsory service. That is apart from the contributions by other provinces and by the Indian States in men and money and the individual contributions which were made.
Still the fact remains—if I may say so, not in opposition to anything which the hon. Gentleman opposite said, but by way of comment upon his remark that India's position is not that of a self-governing Dominion—that without belittling that contribution, India's participation in the War was no greater than her position as the greatest unit of the Empire in size and population
demanded, and no less than her own need to keep her borders inviolate, entailed. Some Provinces, for reasons which are not in the least dishonourable but are nevertheless conclusive, were not able to make any contribution to the actual man-power in the trenches. Therefore, there was more reason for India as a whole to pay in money as well as in men. This, to my mind, is an essentially fair settlement, and I am glad that the Government have brought it forward for the approval of the House. In regard to the history of the settlement, it would be improper for me or anyone else who has held office and is familiar with the circumstances, to relate in detail what happened. It is true, however, that there has been a long and stubborn controversy which has been finally and satisfactorily settled by this compromise.
It is useful to point out, on this occasion, to those—there are many outside this House and there were some inside the House in former Parliaments—who believe that the India Office, and the Secretary of State and the Council, are mere appanages of His Majesty's Government, that no ambassador or foreign minister could have represented any country's case more strongly than India's case was represented by Lord Birkenhead and the other Secretaries of State concerned. The settlement reflects credit on the successive Secretaries of State and the members of the successive Governments who agreed to it. It has been endorsed by more than one Cabinet and by more than one Government of India. Only time has prevented it being brought forward earlier. I am glad that it has been brought forward now, and I should like to think that it would be passed in this House, as I have every reason to believe it will be, without any opposition.

Resolved:
Whereas, by Resolutions passed on the 16th September and 26th November, 1914, respectively, this House consented to the charge upon Indian revenues, subject to certain conditions, of the ordinary pay and other ordinary charges of British and Indian troops despatched out of India for service in the Great War, as well as the ordinary charges of any vessels belonging to the Government of India that might be employed in those expeditions:
And whereas, by a Resolution passed on the 14th March, 1917, this House consented
to a contribution of £100,000,000 charged upon the revenues of India towards the expenses of the War:
And whereas the Government of India, desirous of affording further assistance to His Majesty's Government, provisionally and subject to the consent of this House met out of the revenues of India in 1918–19, with the concurrence of their Legislative Council, further extraordinary charges in respect of the Indian troops employed in the War to the extent of £13,600,000:
And whereas the Government of India are desirous of bearing finally such further extraordinary charges.
That this House consents that the extraordinary charges of £13,600,000 aforesaid shall be borne by Indian revenues.

Orders of the Day — PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

Clause 1 (Grants for public works) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 2.—(Certain debts not to be reckoned as assets of local loans fund.)

Mr. LEWIS: I beg to move, in page 1, line 18, to leave out the words "and Part II."
The two other Amendments which appear on the Paper are consequential upon this Amendment. If hon. Members examine the Schedule to the Bill they will find that Part II is concerned with loans by the Public Works Loan Commissioners under the Agricultural Credits Act of 1923 and the object of the Amendment is to gives the Financial Secretary to the Treasury an opportunity of affording the Committee some further information concerning the losses referred to in that part of the Schedule. I would be glad if he would deal particularly with the loss incurred in the first case. That is the case of a loan of £2,895 in favour of Mr. Baber and Mrs. Aitkens, of which no less than £2,000 has to be written off. On page 3, of the Financial Memorandum attached to the Bill, will be found certain rather remarkable facts regarding this case, and I should like the Financial Secretary to deal with this case under three separate heads.
In the first place, we are told that the farm in question was valued twice by the Valuation Department of the Inland Revenue. In December, 1924, it was valued at £3,860. At the beginning of 1931 it was valued at about £850, plus a small amount in respect of tenant rights. Are we to understand that in the opinion of the Valuation Department of the Inland Revenue the value of farms in this country at the end of 1930, was rather less than one-quarter of their value six years previously? If that be not the general position taken up by the Valuation Department then, in this case, there must be some special circumstances accounting for the remarkable difference between these two valuations. If such special circumstances exist, perhaps the Financial Secretary will tell us briefly what they are? The second point to which I direct the attention of the Financial Secretary is this. On the strength of the first valuation a sum of £2,895 was advanced. It would be interesting to know what became of all that money. If it was spent on improving the farm, that makes the difference between these two valuations even more remarkable than appears on the face of it. The third question which I would put to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is, What are the circumstances in which that mortgage was foreclosed? We are told in the Financial Memorandum:
Owing to the failure of the borrowers to cultivate and manage the farm in a proper and husbandlike manner in accordance with their covenant the Board were compelled to take possession.
That seems a very remarkable and unfortunate state of affairs. When this matter was raised on the Second Reading of the Bill the Financial Secretary said that this money was lent on character. No doubt the character of persons to whom money is lent, is always taken into consideration by the lender of the money, but one would imagine that in a case such as this other considerations would be taken into account—for example, whether the person who sought to borrow the money could show that they were competent and practical farmers who would be likely to make good use of the money. Will the Financial Secretary tell us whether the authorities had any reason to suppose that these persons were competent practical farmers, apart from being people of good
character? There is only one other remark which I wish to make on this Amendment. On the occasion of the Second Reading I mentioned some of these points and the Financial Secretary referred to them in his reply. He opened by saying:
The criticisms of particular items in the Schedule are more appropriate for the Committee stage of the Bill.
I took that merely to be another way of saying that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had not then any answers to the questions raised, but that he could inform himself upon them if they were raised again on the Committee stage. He went on to make a remarkable statement. Referring to my remarks, he said:
I would only say now that his criticisms are four years too late; no advances whatever have been made since 1928 under the Agricultural Credits Act, all these powers having expired long ago. Consequently, I do not think it would he desirable for the House again to hold inquests upon these past loans."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th June, 1932; col. 1427, Vol. 267.]
That seems a curious argument. This money has been lost. The Valuation Department of the Inland Revenue which bears the principal responsibility because it was on its valuation that the money was lent, is still in existence. For aught I know to the contrary, all the gentlemen concerned in this transaction on the Government side are still in Government employ, and I fail to see the reasonableness of the argument that because powers under a particular Act have lapsed, therefore it does not in the least matter how much money has been lost under those powers while they were in operation. It is said that large majorities tend to make Ministers autocratic. I should not have thought that anyone, so urbane and reasonable as the Financial Secretary would so soon have assumed that autocratic air. I assure him that the back benchers in this Parliament are quite capable of selecting for themselves those subjects on which they desire information. For my own part, where it is evident that a large sum has been lost and where the facts put before us do not, by any stretch of the imagination, explain how the money has been lost, that, in my judgment is a proper subject for inquiry by this Committee. I hope that the Financial Secretary having had full notice that these questions would be raised, will be able to give us the information for which I have asked.

4.30 p.m.

Sir ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: I will, if I may, support what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis). We have in the last three years repeatedly seen these Bills brought in regarding losses that have been made in respect of mortgages which could not have been granted earlier than 1923, and were probably granted in 1924 and later. The Financial Secretary has told us that the Act expired in 1928, and therefore the loans, which amounted to £2,000,000 or £3,000,000, could not cover a period longer than from 1924–28. We have not finished with these losses, there must be a very considerable number of mortgages still outstanding, and I fear that the next two or three years will make this plain, as other Public Works Loans Bills come before the House. I think we misunderstood the Financial Secretary's remark that we must not look for inquests on these losses, which are now dead by about four years. What he meant must have been that the mischief was done and no good could be done now by digging up the trouble, and that we must be content to face the loss. We are all human and we all make mistakes, but I do not think we ought to let these losses pass. I add my protest to what has been said by my hon. Friend, and I think the Financial Secretary should overhaul the system by which the valuations were made. I have no fault to find with the valuers. They do their best, but it is evident that they were not fit for the job.
Valuers for Inland Revenue make the valuation as high as possible, so that the State may take as much taxation as possible, but when you lend money you make the valuation as low as possible. The mentality is quite different. The valuer's point of view is how low can he put the valuation so as to prevent his employer losing money in case anything goes wrong. That is not what has been done here. The valuer has put on these properties a value which they were not worth. I go further. The Financial Secretary has said that this is only a small loss, but if an insurance company had been lending £2,000,000 or £3,000,000, and within three or four years had found losses at the rate we are now making these losses, I am certain the insurance company would be unable to meet its
engagements. That is not the way to do business. I think it would not be a bad thing if we had before the Public Accounts Committee—and here I am speaking only for myself—the methods by which these valuations have been carried out, to see if we can learn something for the future, especially as one of the Ministers introduced not many days ago a new Bill which I believe will empower certain Departments to advance new money on agricultural property. If I am right in that, before we go any further, and in order that we may not have these losses under the new Act, I think the whole system by which these valuations are made should be overhauled. I do not want to press the Financial Secretary too much, but I should like to lend a little force to what has been said by my hon. Friend.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Major Elliot): I think this is an appropriate moment at which the accounts should be reviewed, My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis) seemed to be making a very fine-drawn point in stating that when the Minister said that the appropriate time for the examination of the details was on the Clauses and not on Second Reading, that meant that the Minister would inform himself between Second Reading and Committee stage. I make no apology for that. That is the purpose of having an interval between Second Reading and Committee stage. There is nothing to apologise for in having said that, these questions having been raised in general terms on Second Reading, we should proceed to examine them in more detail in Committee. I make no apology for having informed myself more fully between Second Reading and the Committee stage on the arguments which he brought forward and his request for information.
Although he did not give me warning that he was about to raise these specific points, yet I took pains to inform myself on all the points which had been raised on the Second Reading of the Bill, both by the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) and by the hon. Member for Colchester. He raised a few specific-criticisms to which I hope to be able to give answers. He desired to refer particularly to the case of Aitkens. The Committee will see that the name is given as Mr. George Baber and Mrs. Elizabeth
Mabel Ida Aitkens. Both these persons are called Aitkens. They are husband and wife, the surname having been put in for the second of the two names, as is customary in these documents. I was asked, firstly, as to the difference in the valuations that had been made, the first valuation of £3,600 and the second of £800, and what were the special circumstances which accounted for that; secondly, was the money spent on the farm; and, thirdly, why was it subsequently found that this property had not been cultivated in accordance with the rules of good husbandry. The property mortgaged was owned by the wife and farmed by her husband, and they were both conjointly made liable for the covenant.
The Board was advised when the loan was contracted that the farm was in a fair state of cultivation, the ditches and fences in fair order, and from local inquiries that were made it was found that it was considered in the district that Mr. Aitkens was a hard-working man and understood his business, and that Mrs. Aitkens was a keen business woman. Payments were made punctually until October, 1930, when the Board were in-formed that the borrowers could not make any further payment owing to the low price of corn, and the gap between the valuations arose because, owing to the lack of necessary means, the borrowers ceased to cultivate the farm. The Board, therefore, were faced with the necessity of getting back the property for cultivation, or disposing of it for what it would fetch in its uncultivated state. Hon. Members will realise at once that that, with the drop in prices, would account very completely for the difference in valuation between £3,600 and £800. The money had been spent on the farm, but owing to the great agricultural slump and to the ill-fortune of the cultivators, the money was lost. I do not think we may take a fall of that extent as typical of the general decline in the value of landed property in Great Britain, but I should say that this exceptional case does illustrate the enormous collapse in agricultural values in recent years, to prices which it would have been impossible for any valuers to anticipate.

Mr. DENMAN: In certain districts.

Major ELLIOT: Yes, in certain districts. I think that deals with the main points raised by the hon. Member for Colchester in regard to the property.

Mr. LEWIS: There is only the other point, with regard to the character of the people.

Major ELLIOT: As I have said, we made inquiries locally, and the Board were informed that the man's local reputation was that of a hard-working man who understood his business, and that his wife was a keen business woman. Some mistakes are bound to be made when loans are granted, but, even so, there are many instances, of keen business men and hard-working women joined together in the management of farms who, for all that, have gone under owing to the exceptional circumstances of the last few years. The hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis) took exception to one or two remarks of mine and charged me with an autocratic manner—I think a little unjustly. My hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Sir A. M. Samuel) was willing to make more allowance for me. What I meant in saying that the criticisms were four years too late was this: The Public Works Loans Board itself, without this House having drawn their attention to the risks of these transactions, was dubious about the sums that they were being asked to advance; and that the lessons which these losses teach had been learnt by them as long ago as 1928, when these loans were discontinued. I meant not that it is too late for us to make criticisms. The hon. Member for Farnham bears a slight official responsibility for certain advances, which were in fact made during his term of office, and for the moment I am guiltless in that matter.

Sir A. M. SAMUEL: I am quite willing to accept my share of the responsibility. I do not blame my right hon. Friend or the valuer. I think we were wrong in employing that type of valuer.

Major ELLIOT: We now come to the fact whether the valuations were wrong, and I think it would be totally wrong for the Committee to accept that impression. The sums lent reach some £4,750,000, the amounts here under review, of which only a fraction has been lost, to under £300,000, and the actual losses here being discussed to under £13,000. I specifically
asked the Public Works Loans Board, who, as I have said, had uneasiness as to the character of these investments, if they could give any statement as to the accuracy of the valuation which had been made, and they say they would like to put on record that the assistance they have received from the Valuation Department of the Inland Revenue, both as regards valuation and the detailed information as to local conditions placed at their disposal, has been of great value. Hon. Members may say that in spite of that, losses have been made, but still that is a testimony from a body of men who are the keenest business men that it is possible for any Chancellor to select as his advisers—business men of a firm, rigid type of financial purity which has from time to time drawn upon them the criticism of hon. Members in other quarters of the House.
What is it, then, that has been at fault here? I think the fault has been that it was impossible to foresee the catastrophic fall in prices. Yet in the future more than in the past I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham will agree, we shall have to invest more in this country and perhaps less oversea. If we do that we shall undoubtedly make losses. If we invest oversea or at home, a percentage of wastage will be sure to occur. In the past we have applied a more rigid standard to investments made at home, and they have been scrutinised more closely than investments abroad. Tens and scores of millions of pounds have been invested abroad and lost with little comment. If £l,000, £2,000 or £3,000 is lost at home, the whole weight and power of the House of Commons is fixed on the loss. The people who have made the losses are pilloried and their names are paraded about to be printed and condemned in the local papers. If we are to restore prosperity at home we must extend to our own home producers some of the leniency which we have extended to oversea producers in previous years. Let us beware of unduly harrying those who make losses among our own producers, because we have in the past, on the whole, as investors, received far better treatment from our people at home than we have received from people to whom we have lent money oversea.

Mr. ATTLEE: At one time I thought that I should have to challenge the hon.
Member for Farnham (Sir A. M. Samuel), because I gathered from the tone of his speech that somehow or other the Financial Secretary had been very remiss in this matter. It was not until the hon. Gentleman gracefully donned the white sheet himself that I realised that these transactions had to some extent taken place while he was in charge. I had intended to ask what the Financial Secretary ought to have done, or what he had left undone that he ought to have done. I gathered that he ought to have been more active, and that he had allowed the matter to run on too long, but I gather now that this is a very small loss indeed when we consider the magnitude of the transactions and the trend of agricultural prices. It would be useful if anyone who has had the experience would state the number of failures that there have been among tenants generally during this time of crisis, as compared with the number of failures in the instances where advances have been made on mortgage. It seems to me that this work has been done very carefully. I should have thought that the hon. Member for Farnham and others would have welcomed the situation as it is exposed in this Bill, because it only represents what Sir Josiah Stamp calls "these healthy bankruptcies." The capitalist system cannot go on without them—

Sir A. M. SAMUEL: I went a little further than that. The Legislature has to make the public feel perfectly certain that it is safe in the hands of the Revenue authorities; and it does not do for the public to see the Revenue valuer so much at fault, so much out of correctitude in valuations as is the case here. Suppose that later on these valuations were used for probate, and it was found that they were all wrong and that a great deal of loss had been made. The people who were paying duties upon these valuations would feel that they had not had the treatment to which they were entitled. I am not blaming anybody, but it does not do to have valuations so far removed from what are actualities in view of the fact that Death Duties bear very hardly on the people who have to pay them. The one thing that we must do in imposing taxation is to make the people who are paying the taxation feel that they are paying on valuations which are very nearly correct.

Mr. ATTLEE: At this time in the world's history it is difficult to bring out valuations correctly after a period of years. Values fluctuate and the whole thing gets upset. I only wish that all prophecies as to values which I have received turned out correctly. When I am advised to do something, it usually turns out that I lose, although I have had the very best advice, and most of us have had the same experience. I know that some of my constituents always take the best advice in making investments just before the flat-racing season, but more often than not they seem to have more losses than winnings. The hon. Member for Farnham is expecting too much when he expects that valuations of agricultural land made six, seven or eight years ago would not be falsified when we have had such a heavy fall in world prices. The extent of these losses shows that the valuations have been done extremely carefully and well, and, considering world conditions, the State has got off very lightly.

Amendment negatived.

Clauses 3 (Remission of arrears of principal and interest in respect of Eye-mouth Harbour loan); 4 (Remission of balance of principal and interest in respect of certain local loans) and 5 (Short Title), ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — BRITISH MUSEUM BILL. [LORDS.]

Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

Orders of the Day — ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) (No. 2) BILL.

Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

AGRICULTURAL CREDITS (MORT GAGES) BILL [Lords].

Considered in Committee.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

Clause 1 (Application of Act) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 2.—(Validity of provision in mortgage for repayment of loan by instalments.)

The following Amendment stood upon the Order Paper:

In page 1, line 20, to leave out the word "Notwithstanding," and to insert instead thereof the words, "Subject to."—[Mr. Lewis. ]

The CHAIRMAN: I think that this Amendment is not in order as it amounts to a direct negative of the Clause.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

5.0 p.m.

Mr. LEWIS: I shall be glad if at this stage we can have some further explanation of the need for the provision in this Bill which takes away from the farmer the right which is enjoyed by all other persons who borrow money on mortgage. There is among agriculturists a good deal of uncertainty as to why this special provision should be made in their case. As hon. Members know, it is the universal rule that a person who mortgages his property cannot be prevented from redeeming it for an unreasonable time if he is willing and able to do so. I believe I am right in saying that it is a working rule in the courts that a period of from seven to 10 years may be held to be. for this purpose, an unreasonable period. A man who borrows money on terms making it repayable over a great number of years may come in time to regret that the period fixed was so long. He may acquire funds from some unexpected source, for example, under a will, or there may be some great change, such as we have witnessed, in the value of money, which may mean that if he could redeem his property he could borrow again on much more favourable terms. It is for these reasons that the courts have always refused to allow a man so to bind himself that he cannot redeem his property, if able and willing to do so, until after an unreasonable time has elapsed. By this Clause this privilege is to be expressly taken away from farmers borrowing money from the corporation which was created under the original Act, and I think we are entitled to some explanation as to why that is regarded as necessary.
It might be urged that if no such provision were made the whole contract might
be invalidated, and that the corporation would be unable to recover from year to year the sums agreed to be paid by way of return of capital and interest. If that be the only reason I would submit that some countervailing provision should have been put in the Bill, so that the borrower, though deprived of the protection afforded to other similar borrowers by the courts of equity, would get the compensation of a special Clause which would enable him, on giving a certain number of years' notice, and being willing to pay the proper amount, to redeem his property. On the face of it, and from the very short explanation we had on Second Reading, I cannot gather what further reason there may be for this provision and I think we should be told why it is necessary to take away from farmers borrowing from this corporation this right which has been granted by the Courts to all other persons.

Sir JOHN RUTHERFORD: Before the Solicitor-General replies, may I make a further point with regard to this Clause, as one who has advised clients in regard to these mortgages and who is himself also a mortgagor under the original Act? Where I had the original form of mortgage put before me, I saw that it contained a proviso, which is, in substance, this suggested Clause, saying that the mortgage could not be paid off, except with the permission of the Board, before the stated time. I have advised clients that that provision in the mortgage was invalid. It may be that farmers have taken up these loans disregarding what it states in the mortgage, just as one disregards the ordinary provision for redemption in a mortgage, not taking it literally but more as an expression of intention and there might be an injustice if this Clause were to apply to mortgages already in existence. Would it not be more equitable to limit it in its application to mortgages which are made in future? That is a point upon which I should like the Solicitor-General to reply.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Boyd Merriman): The point which was made by the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis) really goes to the whole root of this Bill. When the Act of 1928 was passed this House sanctioned the setting up of a company for the purposes, as the Act itself showed, of making long-term advances for the benefit of the agricul-
tural community. It was of the essence of the scheme that it should be a long-term scheme, and, as the Act itself shows, it was with a view to securing that the loans by such a company should be made on terms most favourable to borrowers; and I suppose nobody will dispute that the farming community have, in fact, derived great benefits from it. But the finance of the scheme was based, as the Act itself said, upon this being a long-term scheme, and not changeable at the will of the mortgagor—because he has come into a legacy, as the hon. Member for Colchester suggested—into a short-term scheme should it happen to suit him and be disadvantageous to the company.
I am afraid that I cannot accept the suggestion of the hon. Member for Edge-hill (Sir J. Rutherford) that people have been under any genuine misapprehension as to the nature of the scheme in the meantime. The whole idea was to set up machinery for long-term credits, which would only be changeable by the mutual consent of both parties, and not at the will of only one. That was what it was thought the Act of 1928 had achieved; but although there has never been any decision on the point—I am not able to find any actual, reported case—I understand that doubts have been expressed as to whether, if the matter were challenged, the ordinary rule, which was stated quite accurately by the hon. Member for Colchester, might not apply. It is to remove those doubts, and to restore what was the plain intention of the Act, that it has been necessary to bring forward this Bill. I cannot accept the suggestion that there is any hardship in making it retrospective. Therefore, I hope the House will reject the suggestion that there should be any amendment of the Clause.

Clauses 3 (Provisions as to mortgages where land is held in trust) and 4 (Short title), ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

SOLICITORS BILL [Lords].

Considered in Committee.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

Clauses 1 (The Law Society to act as registrar of Solicitors), 2 (The registrar
to keep the roll of Solicitors), 3 (Admission and enrolment of Solicitors), 4 (Constitution of Disciplinary Committee), 5 (Powers of Committee), and 6 (Procedure of Committee) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7.—(Filing, effect and notice of orders made by the Committee.)

The CHAIRMAN: The Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Dr. Peters)—

In page 4, line 4, at end to insert the words
Provided that no such notice shall be so inserted if a notice of appeal shall have been given against any order so made or pending the decision of any application to the High Court."—
is out of order.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Dr. PETERS: I quite realised that the foregoing Amendment, and probably two other Amendments which I have put down, might be ruled out of order, but I put them down to call attention to what has happened to this Bill in another place. We find that in dealing with the Solicitors Act, 1843, another place have enlarged the extent of the existing law, and I understand that is not in order. In the first part of Section 31 of the Act of 1843 there is a reference to taking proceedings by way of writ or process, and it goes on to refer to "or matters in bankruptcy." The second part or limb of that Section does not refer at all to any matter in bankruptcy. What have they done in another place? If we refer to Clause 53 of the present Bill we find they get over that difficulty by inserting the words:
Any such action or matter.
The word "matter" there obviously referring to a matter in bankruptcy. I suggest that that sort of thing is not what we in this House should approve.

The CHAIRMAN: Will the hon. Member kindly explain to me what he is dealing with? The Clause I called was Clause 7.

Dr. PETERS: What I was dealing with was the principle of ruling out of order such suggestions as have been placed on the Order Paper when we find in the Bill itself, in Section 53, that it has been done in another place.

The CHAIRMAN: Because an Amendment to Clause 7 has been ruled out of order the hon. Member cannot on Clause 7 discuss the conduct of another place in regard to another Clause altogether.

Clauses 8 (Appeal against orders of Committee), 9 (Procedure upon applications to the High Court), 10 (Power of registrar to draw up orders), 11 (Orders of High Court to be produced to registrar), 12 (Limitation of time for certain applications to strike names off the roll), and 13 (Power to replace name of Solicitor on roll) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 14 to 25 and Clauses 26 to 31 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 32.—(Conditions of admission to final examination.)

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 13, line 33, to leave out the words "no person shall," and to insert instead thereof the words:
a person articled to a solicitor after the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and twenty-two, shall not.
It might seem to be rather absurd to substitute the one form of words for the other but, as it happens, there is a point of substance. This, of course, is a consolidating Bill, and we have to be very careful not to amend the law in any way that would affect adversely any person who would not otherwise be affected. As a matter of fact, in the Statute which was intended to be reproduced by this Clause, the words originally framed provided that a person articled to a Solicitor after the 31st of December, 1922, shall not be admitted to the final examination without attending a Law School. It was thought, as a matter of draftsmanship, to be tidier to put the Clause into the form in which it appears on the Paper, and to put the provision with regard to the date of the articles in a Proviso which appears on the next page; but the result, unfortunately, has been to affect barristers of five years' standing who, under Clause 34, are entitled to become solicitors, after fulfilling the proper conditions, without being articled to a solicitor. If, therefore, the wording were left in its present form, a barrister of five years' standing would be liable to
have to attend a solicitors' law school for a year before being admitted as a solicitor. [Interruption.] That definitely would be an amendment of the law which, monstrous or not as the hon. Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) says, would not be in order on this Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 14, line 27, to leave out from the word "term," to the end of the Sub-section.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Clauses 33 to 52 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 53.—(Solicitors not to commence or defend actions whilst in prison.)

Dr. PETERS: I beg to move, in page 25, line 13, to leave out the words "confined in prison," and to insert instead thereof the words "a prisoner in any prison."
These words which I propose should be inserted would follow the old Statute, and I feel sure that they will be acceptable to the Committee.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I am prepared to advise the Committee to accept this Amendment. I do not think there is any very great substance in the change of words, but it is true that the wording in Clause 53 of the Bill, while I think reproducing the sense of the old Statute, does depart from the wording. The hon. Member's wording is a return to the wording of the former Statute, and I am prepared to accept it.

Amendment agreed to.

The following Amendment stood on the Order Paper:

In page 25, line 27, at the end, to add the words:
(3) Provided that notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this Section nothing herein shall prevent a solicitor from continuing his practice as a solicitor or employing a duly qualified person to do so, pending an appeal from his conviction and/or sentence, or from prosecuting personally or through such other person his appeal."—[Dr. Peters.]

The CHAIRMAN: The Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Dr. Peters) is out of order.

Clauses 54 to 83 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

First, Second, Third and Fourth Schedules agreed to.

Bill reported; as amended, considered.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."—[The Solicitor-General.]

Dr. PETERS: Perhaps I may now be in order in pointing out to the House what has happened in bringing this Bill before it. The Section, to which I referred in the Committee stage, of the old Act of 1843, has certainly not been reproduced in Clause 53 of the Bill. While there is the principle that in a Consolidation Bill you must not introduce anything fresh, you may correct obvious errors. Undoubtedly here there has been an extension of the law. I am not complaining, because years ago when the old Act of 1843 was passed, there obviously must have been an omission, and it is quite right that there should be in the Bill the words that we now have, referring to matters in bankruptcy, as well as to other suits and acts. I would like to point out that when we are dealing with the consolidation of a number of Statutes as here, it should be within our province to go into these matters very carefully in Committee stage, and to rectify anything that apparently is wrong. These Amendments which stand in my name on the Order Paper, and to which reference has been made, deal quite clearly with points that ought to have been covered in legislation dealing with solicitors. There is one Clause at which hon. Members have probably looked, and they will have seen that where there is some allegation against the solicitor he can be called to order by the committee of the Law Society, and if any proceedings are to be taken in the High Court notice is to be served by the applicant or complainant upon the Registrar of the Law Society, but there is no provision for any notice to be served upon the solicitor concerned.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir Dennis Herbert): I am very sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but I am afraid that he is again out of order. On the Third Reading we can only discuss what is in the Bill, but he is now not only discussing
something which is not in the Bill but something which would not be within the scope of the Bill, and which would not permit of the Bill going through as a consolidation Bill, as his proposal is to improve the law.

Dr. PETERS: I realise the difficulty of my position, but I wanted to make a point on the question of procedure on a Consolidation Bill. I bow to your Ruling, and I hope that the Solicitor-General at an early date will bring in an amending Bill so as to provide for the points which I have raised and which, as a matter of procedure, are following in actual practice. When detailing in a Bill a certain procedure, it seems rather ridiculous to leave those things out of the Bill.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It is quite obvious that the hon. Member cannot now discuss what the rules of procedure ought to be with regard to consolidation Bills. The whole theory and practice of consolidation Bills would be entirely put an end to and all consolidating Bills would be absolutely stopped for ever, if what the hon. Member is now advocating were permitted in this procedure.

Dr. PETERS: With all respect, let me say that the point I was making was not exactly that, but was a plea to the Solicitor-General that he might in the near future bring in a Bill to put right those things to which I have called attention, and for which there is undoubtedly urgent need.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I assure the hon. Member that his representations shall have due consideration. In the meantime, as a necessary preliminary to the consideration of those matters, I hope that we shall have the Third Reading of this Bill. Unless we get that, and consolidate the law, as things are at present it will not be possible even to consider an amendment of the law.

Mr. LAWSON: As one who was a Member of the Joint Committee that examined this Bill, I recall that I wondered when I was appointed and found myself a member of the Committee, why an hon. Member who was lacking in legal knowledge was placed on the Committee. I soon found out, because when I got there I found that I had one of the best qualifications, and
that was that I had my trade union ticket as a miner in my pocket. I can only say that, so far as it was possible for a layman like myself to judge, the learned gentlemen with whom I sat were scrupulously careful to avoid changing in any way the spirit of the law, thus preserving the first fundamental principle of a consolidation Bill.
5.30 p.m.
I am very pleased to see the facility with which the Bill has gone through, but it seems strange that in a matter like this consolidation can be readily obtained, while in the case of the law relating to some very grave matters, affecting great masses of the people of this country, no time can be found for its consolidation or its consideration. The Government have given promises that there would be a Bill to consolidate the law relating to Unemployment Insurance, but, although they are agreed as to the necessity for its consolidation, they have always failed to find time for it. I am sure the House will be interested to know that I, as. a good trade unionist, found myself in harmony with the gentlemen sitting round me who were concerned with the protection of their minimum wages. I only wish that the trade unionists of this country, and particularly the miners, could have as good rules with regard to their business as the lawyers will obtain by the passing of this Bill.

CARRIAGE BY AIR BILL [Lords].

Considered in Committee.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Provisions of Convention to have force of law.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. TINKER: I want to ask a question of which I gave notice on Friday, but to which the right hon. Gentleman could not reply then, because he had exhausted his right to speak in the Debate. My question is this: If the House agree to this Bill, how long will it be before it comes into use? Shall we
have to wait for all the other Powers to ratify the Convention, or, if a certain number of them ratify it, will those who have done so then go on with the Bill? Unless we have some definite understanding, it may be a long time before any good comes from the Bill, but, if those Powers who have ratified the Convention can put it into use, some benefit will accrue immediately.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): The Convention requires that it should be ratified by at least five of the principal sovereign States. Four sovereign States have already ratified it, and we also are prepared to do so now, so that there is every reason to hope that it will be put into operation with the least possible delay.

Clauses 2 (Provisions as to actions against High Contracting Parties who undertake carriage by air), 3 (Application of this Act to colonies, protectorates, etc.), 4 (Provision for applying Act to carriage by air which is not international), 5 (Provisions as to Orders in Council) and 6 (Short title) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

First and Second Schedules agreed to.

Preamble agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS BILL

Order for Consideration of Lords Amendments read.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered," put, and agreed to.—[Mr. O. Stanley.]

Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

CLAUSE 1.—(Juvenile courts.)

Lords Amendment: In page 1, line 22, at the end, insert:
A charge made jointly against a child or young person and a person who has attained the age of seventeen years shall, for the purposes of this Section, not be treated as a charge against a child or young person.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Oliver Stanley): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The object of this Amendment, which is almost to be described as a drafting Amendment, i.3 to ensure beyond any doubt that, where a joint charge is made against a child or young person, who would normally come before the juvenile court, and an adult, that joint charge shall not be heard in the juvenile court, but in the adult court. The principle was agreed to without any discussion in the House, but it was felt that these words had better be inserted, in order to make certain that that principle over-rides any contrary instruction that there may be in this part of the Bill.

Quesion, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the same Amendment," put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 2, line 6, leave out from the word "apply," to the word "where," in line 9.

Mr. STANLEY: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This Amendment is consequential upon the one which has just been agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In line 31, leave out from the word "shall" to the end of Sub-section (4), and insert:
sit either in a different building or room from that in which sittings of courts other than juvenile courts are held, or on different days or at different times from those on or at which sittings of such other courts are held.

Mr. STANLEY: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, in line 5, to leave out the words "or at different times."
Perhaps it may be convenient to the House if I discuss at the same time another Amendment which I shall have to move to the Lords Amendment. The House no doubt will remember that one of the new provisions made in the Bill was with regard to the sittings of juvenile courts. As the Bill was originally introduced, it proposed that it should no longer be possible to hold a juvenile court in either a building mainly or exclusively used as a police station or for the hold-
ing of courts not being juvenile courts, or a room ordinarily used for the holding of courts not being juvenile courts; but the Bill as it was introduced allowed for the making of an application to the Secretary of State in any case where it was felt that this new provision would be an undue burden on the local authority in the present difficult times, and the Secretary of State was given power to approve the use of an ordinary court or room in a building usually used for the purpose of an adult court.
I think there was general agreement in the House with the principle of that new provision. It was felt that it was a bad thing to associate too closely the adult and the juvenile courts, not only from the point of view of bringing the juveniles awaiting trial in contact with adults also awaiting trial, but, what was felt to be even more important, from the point of view of the parents, whose sympathies it is desirable to enlist in any treatment that is going to be provided for their children, and who would be more likely to respond if they were not haled before the ordinary police court, with all its associations, but were taken to a different room and a different atmosphere. At the same time, we recognise that, in view of the fact that in many districts, particularly country districts, the present practice is for the juvenile court to sit either in the ordinary adult court or in the magistrates' room in the adult court-house, a number of applications would have had to be made, and in a number of cases we should have had to grant permission for the continuance of the old practice. This Amendment restores the provision that juvenile courts may sit either in a different building or a different room from that in which courts other than juvenile courts are held, or on different days or at different times from the sittings of such other courts. The effect will be that they can sit in a different room at any time on any day, or, if the same room be used, at a different time or on a different day from when that room is used for the holding of an ordinary adult court.
In some ways it is retrogressive to ask the House, as I shall do, to agree to this Amendment, but, from information which has reached us since the Bill was first discussed, we have realised that at the present moment it would not be possible,
in the case of a large number of courts, to comply strictly with the provisions of the Bill as it was introduced, that applications would have to be made for permission to contravene this provision, and that we should have to grant such permission. It is a bad thing, however, to pass something in an Act of Parliament and then to grant so many exemptions that it becomes practically a dead letter.
But there is one point in the Lords Amendment to which it is impossible to ask the House to agree. It is impossible to ask the House to agree that the juvenile court may sit in the same room as an ordinary adult court, provided only that it is at a different time, because that would allow of a continuance of the present practice which I think is very deleterious, under which a court sits 'as an adult court, and then, by simply putting up a notice outside the door, turns itself immediately into a juvenile court in the same room. The Amendment which I now move to the Lords Amendment would mean that the ordinary adult courtroom could only be used for a juvenile court if it were so used on a different day. Hon. Members will realise that this provision entails no expense. It does not mean that a different room will have to be found, or hired, or built. If it means anything, it can only mean some inconvenience to magistrates in not being able to dispose of both the adult and the juvenile business on the same day. I think the House will agree, however, that such slight inconvenience as it may cause will be well repaid by the resulting partial separation, at any rate, of juvenile and adult courts.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: So far as I understand this very complicated method of dealing with Amendments from the other House, the hon. Gentleman appears to me to be agreeing with one part of the Lords Amendment and disagreeing with another. I do not think that there is sufficient difference on the first issue to warrant delaying the Bill, and, with regard to holding juvenile courts on different days from adult courts, I am glad to hear what the hon. Gentleman has said. I am satisfied, from the evidence on this matter to which I listened for a long time, that he is perfectly right in his statement, and, rather than delay the Bill, I should be
willing to accept, reluctantly in respect of the first point, the suggestion, that is now made.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I do not like this Amendment. We discussed it at great length upstairs and practically the whole Committee thought we should have kept the young children apart altogether from criminals and from the criminal court. The Government brought this Bill in because they considered that the methods of the past were not in keeping with our humane ideas to-day. Time and again it was brought out that Members had attended these courts and found young children who were practically innocent being brought into contact with court officials, police, etc., and we thought this was an opportunity to ensure that young children should no longer be treated in the barbarous fashion in which they are treated to-day in being brought before criminal courts, with all that that means. I think, as a Member of the House for over 10 years, that if the Lords are going to amend our Bills they ought to come here and hear what we have to say about it. They have no right to sit high and dry in another place and deal with subjects that they know absolutely nothing about.
We are dealing here with the poorest section of the working class, and young children at that. Members on all sides of the House have taken a keen interest in the Bill, and, after we have argued with one another and come to some sort of agreement on a Bill that the Undersecretary has piloted through with great credit to himself, Members of another place who know nothing about it say, "We will not allow this to go in. We are the Lords." I hope, if it is within your power, Sir, that you will let the Lords know that, if they are going to amend our Bills, it is their duty to send representatives to this House to hear what we have to say. The time when the Lords can do what they like is far past. They are not going to mutilate our Bills in this fashion. The Undersecretary says we are not able to have special court houses for children, as originally intended, owing to our straitened circumstances. Are any of the Lords hard up? Are any of them going without their breakfast? Are any of them on the means test? Not one. Yet an atmosphere has been created that the country is poverty-stricken, and every
thing that we do has to be tainted with that disease—even doing justice to little children.
I do not believe that is a justification for their turning down this part of the Bill. The Under-Secretary says they discovered, in getting into contact with certain districts, that the conditions were of such a character that they would not have been able to comply with the law. That is all right, but I have known laws passed when it was known quite well that the workers could not comply with them. The House will support the Under-Secretary, and the most that I can do is to ask him to let it be known throughout the length and the breadth of the land what was the idea that pervaded the Committee, that children should not be brought into contact with criminal courts.

Mr. BATEY: I want to join with ray hon. Friend in regretting that the Under-Secretary is accepting any part of this Amendment. It is a wise step to delete these words, thus making it possible to use a court for adult cases and then to go on to consider juvenile cases, but still at this stage he should not have been prepared to accept any part of the Lords Amendment. It might be costly to ask for a different building in which to try juveniles, but I see nothing to prevent them being tried in a different room in the same building. One has acted as a magistrate in a good many of these cases and, if it is not possible to try juveniles in the magistrates' room, there is always some other room, even if it is the magistrates' clerk's room. I am strongly opposed to juveniles being tried in an adult court, even on a different day, and I regret very much that the Under-Secretary has given way.

Amendment to Lords Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made in Lords Amendment: In line 6, leave out the words "or at."—[Mr. Stanley.]

CLAUSE 7.—(Provisions with respect to remands and bail.)

Lords Amendment: In page 6, line 32, leave out Sub-section (1) and insert:
(1) When a juvenile court have remanded a child or young person for information to be obtained with respect to him, any juvenile court acting for the same petty sessional division or place—

(a) may in his absence extend the period for which he is remanded, so, however, that he appears before a court or a justice at least once in every twenty-one days;
(b) when the required information has been obtained may deal with him finally;

and where the court by whom he was originally remanded have recorded a finding that he is guilty of an offence charged against him, it shall not be necessary for any court who subsequently deal with him under this subsection to hear evidence as to the commission of that offence except in so far as they may consider that such evidence will assist them in determining the manner in which he should be dealt with.

Mr. STANLEY: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
6.0 p.m.
The difference which this Amendment makes in the Sub-section as we passed it in this House is that whereas before, after the remand, the young offender had to come back to the court as originally constituted, it will now be possible for him to come back to a court otherwise constituted. The hon. Member for West-houghten (Mr. Rhys Davies) will remember that it was a subject which we discussed in Committee, and I held then, as I still hold, that theoretically it is right that the court which hears the evidence and finds the evidence proved should also be the court which finally determines the decision and the sentence. It is rather theoretical, because the new court before which the young offender appears for decision can, of course, go over the evidence again. Still, theoretically, I think that the decision which we took in Committee was right. Technically, however, it has been pointed out to us that extraordinary difficulties will arise in rural areas in always having exactly the same court constituted., and that possibly the adherence to theoretical perfection may mean intolerable delay in the remanding of the young person before you can constitute exactly the same court, which will then be in a position to finish the case.
In those circumstances I think that we had better abandon theoretical perfection and accept the Amendment. [Interruption.] The new court before it actually
came to its decision could ask for certain evidence over again or could have statements made. It would not, of course, restore the position that they would be exactly the same people who heard all the evidence when the case was first tried. It has a practical advantage and may lead to boys being kept in remand for a longer period, and as the advantages outweigh the disadvantages, I move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Clause 9.—(Powers of Juvenile Court in respect of children and young persons needing care or protection.)

Lords Amendment: In page 7, line 38, at the end, insert:
or
(d) who, being a female, is a member of the same household as a female in respect of whom an offence under the Punishment of Incest Act, 1908, has been committed by a member of that household.

Mr. STANLEY: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
At present the power under this Clause to bring young persons before a juvenile court when they are in need of care or protection only extends to circumstances where incest has been committed in respect of a young person and where another young person or child in the same household can be brought before the court. The effect of the Lords Amendment is to extend that protection and to make it possible now to bring a child or young person before the juvenile court if the offence has been committed against any female in the house, whether she is a young person or not. It is clearly right that the age of the person against whom the offence has been committed does not make any difference to the danger which may face other children or persons in the household, and, that being so, I hope that the House will agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 9, line 42, agreed to.

CLAUSE 15.—(Amendments as to summary trial of children for indictable offences.)

Lords Amendment: In page 12, line 5, at the end, insert:
and when the child is a male, to adjudge the child to be, as soon as practicable, privately whipped with not more than six strokes op a birch rod by a constable, in the presence of an inspector or other officer of police of higher rank than a constable, and also in the presence, if he desires to be present, of the parent or guardian of the child.

Mr. STANLEY: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The Amendment is to restore in the Bill the provision for the whipping of boys under 14 which we took out of the original Bill. It might be useful if I mention to hon. Members the course of the discussions on that provision while the House were considering the original Bill. When I moved the Second Heading it was discussed by several hon. Members during the course of the Debate, and yet, as the House will remember, the Second Reading was passed without a Division. Subsequently in Committee an Amendment in more or less these terms was moved by an hon. Member. We had a long discussion on the point, my memory being that practically every one taking part in the discussion was on the same side, and in the end the Amendment was negatived without a Division. When the Bill came back to this House for the Report stage, no Amendment was put upon the Paper to remove these provisions, and finally the Bill, with the powers to whip removed, passed the Third Reading, again without a Division.
Hon. Members will realise that these provisions were not only fully discussed by the House and by the Committee, but at no single stage were they even challenged, let alone defeated in this House. In the circumstances, apart from any other consideration, I think that it would be proper for this House not to allow a decision which they had come to so unanimously and after such careful consideration to be rejected without a protest. I cannot help feeling that nearly all the opposition. to the abolition of these general powers to the whipping by magistrates of boys under 14 years arose from a failure to distinguish between the different types of whipping and their
different effects. The hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood), who I know will support me on this occasion, will support me for a different reason. He disagrees with whipping in any circumstances for any offence, no matter by whom administered. Those are not my views.
I believe that in certain circumstances for certain purposes whipping can still be an effective deterrent and punishment, but I am convinced that for the purpose for which this kind of whipping is imposed, and the circumstances in which it is administered, it is neither effective nor a deterrent. Hon. Members will realise that here you have a boy not receiving corporal punishment either from a parent or from a schoolmaster or from somebody whom he can trust and Whom he knows and to whom he has a feeling that he owes a certain obligation. Here it is administered by a policeman. That in itself, I think, makes a difference. But far more important is the fact that if the child is whipped in his home or in his school he feels it is all part of the game. It is part of the discipline he expects. There is nothing shameful in it. There is nothing frightening in it, although there may be occasions when it is painful.
It is not like what you get where whipping is administered by order of the court by a policeman. Here, not only do you get a feeling of resentment in the boy but, what is very often worse, a feeling of resentment in the parent, who, though he might be prepared to whip the child much harder himself, does not like to see him whipped in court by a policeman. You have, therefore, a child who has committed an offence, and who therefore ought to find in his home reprobation, and his parents angry with him, but you find instead that they sympathise with him and look upon him as a martyr. Therefore, a feeling that he has committed a wrong which ought to be kept alive by his home discipline, disappears in a sort of halo.
The mischievous boy, who, we are always told, is the boy best adapted to this form of punishment, I venture to say, is very often the worst adapted, because such a boy has usually committed rather petty offences out of a feeling of adventure and wants to show off before his companions. He wants to show the gang with whom he runs that he is a brave
adventurous fellow. The effect, very often, of police court whipping is to make him a hero among his fellows. There is nothing romantic about being sent to an approved school, or even to be put upon probation. You cannot make a hero of someone like that, especially if he is taken away for two years. But you can make a hero of one who has stood his whipping bravely, and that, very often, is the case.
The most important thing of all is this: Hon. Members may think that I am opposing this whipping because we think whipping is often too severe a punishment for the type of case. I am not sure that that is always the case. I think that the whipping is often not severe enough. What hon. Members fail sometimes to appreciate is that you cannot combine whipping and any other punishment. You cannot whip a boy and put him on probation. You cannot whip a boy and send him to an approved school. The whipping that you can administer, whatever the offence may be, is a final and complete termination of the offence. I suggest that the punishment of whipping, painful as it may be at times, is not suitable for checking the offence for which it may be administered. It is often decided not so much by careful consideration of the type of offence and what is necessary to bring the boy back to the proper path. Whipping is cheap and quick, and whereas you can whip a boy at little expense, you can only keep him in an approved school at the expense of a local authority.
Although I know that it would be out of order to quote from the Debate on this subject in another place, which has resulted in this Measure, I think that I should so far be in order as to say that their opposition was largely influenced by a case to which reference was made. I should clearly be in order in referring to the case which many of us heard of outside when it was published in the papers. It was a case somewhere in East London where a gang of boys were tried for mutilating a flock of sheep. I think that there were 12 boys who mutilated in a most horrible fashion something like 20 sheep, and it was suggested in another place, and received with acclamation, that that was a proper case for whipping. I should disagree with that entirely. It
seems to me that a boy when young may very likely pull the wings off a fly, and in later days tie a tin can to the tail of a dog in a spirit of mischief but when he gets to 12 or 14 years of age and he commits an act of mutilation in a horrible manner, there is something radically wrong with him and it does not seem to me that to that kind of psychology or that kind of person whipping is going to do any good. To whip boys of that kind and turn them loose again on society is to do nothing whatsoever to cure the root evil which caused the offence, and is likely to stimulate the commission of such an offence again. A boy like that needs a course of treatment. He requires removal from his influences. He wants to be sent to the hard, commonsesne, clean atmosphere of a school. Because whipping while it remains is an easy and cheap alternative to what I believe is the proper kind of treatment, one feels that it is not safe just to leave whipping to drop into desuetude, which it is already doing, but that we should take this final step and put it outside the power of all magistrates to do what nearly every magistrate in his own court has abandoned, that is to inflict corporal punishment.
I personally and my Department do not stand with the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) as the opponents of corporal punishment, in every circumstance and all circumstances. It is not merely on sentimental grounds that we take our present attitude. Under Home Office rules corporal punishment on proper occasions is still administered, but I do think that there is all the difference in the world between whipping a boy by his parents or his schoolmaster and whipping by a policeman at the order of the court. I hope that the House will join with us in disagreeing with the Lords in this Amendment, and that they will once more remove the power of whipping from the Bill.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I am sure that I am voicing the feelings of nearly every Member when I congratulate the Government on their attitude. [Hon. Members: "No!"] Without criticising what members in another place have done, I would say that they have forgotten two or three fundamental facts in relation to whipping. The first fact is, that the courts are gradually declining to order boys to
be whipped. The number of boys ordered to be whipped is decreasing anually, and in a few years time I should imagine that whipping will disappear automatically, because magistrates do not want to order whipping. The other argument that is paramount in my mind is that we may have a backward bench of magistrates who may order a boy to be whipped in one town for an offence that is less serious than an offence for which a boy has been put on probation or sent to an approved school in another town. Therefore, it is possible that the law in those circumstances will be administered in an unequal fashion.
The Under-Secretary says that we are not entitled to quote what has been said in another place. I saw in the Press that one member in the other place had stated—and I want to contradict it, because the statement was incorrect—that the committee which inquired into the treatment of young offenders were unanimously in favour of maintaining the power of the court to order whipping. That member of the other House obviously had not a copy of the report before him. The committee reported in March, 1927. This is what the minority report said:
We are not satisfied that whipping ordered by a court of law serves a useful purpose. We cannot therefore agree with the recommendation of the Committee on this point.
Two members of the committee and myself signed the minority report. The majority report was rather half-hearted in favour of maintaining the whipping of boys. Even their Lordships do not want to whip little girls. It is interesting to note the exact words of their Amendment:
and when the child is a male, to adjudge the child to be, as soon as practicable privately whipped with not more than six strokes of a birch rod by a constable, in the presence of an inspector or other officer of police of higher rank than a constable, and also in the presence, if he desires to be present of the parent or guardian of the child.
I hope that some historian will pick out those words when he writes the history of the other place. The majority of the committee in their report said:
We deprecate strongly any indiscriminate use of whipping. There should be a medical examination in all cases, and the parent or guardian should have the right to be present. The court should consider the
character of the offender rather than the nature of the offence. Subject to these safe-guards, the court should be able to order whipping in respect of any serious offence committed by a boy under 17. Whipping should not be associated with any other form of treatment.
There were 12 members of the Committee and even the majority were rather halfhearted in recommending that whipping should be ordered by the courts. Three members of the Committee were against that recommendation. This is not a party Bill. There are no political differences in regard to it. From the evidence that we received on the Committee referred to it was obvious that magistrates were discarding the power they possessed and decreasing every year the number of children ordered to be whipped. I read in a newspaper the other day that a bench of magistrates had ordered a child of eight to be whipped. What nonsense to order a child of eight to be whipped by a police officer, in the year 1932 in this country, where we boast, and rightly so, that we are rather intelligent people. I have been told on more than one occasion that the police officer told off to whip children dislikes the task so much that the whipping is only done as a sham. I do not blame the police officer who is ordered to whip a child of eight years that he does not undertake the task with severity. I congratulate the Government on declining to agree to the Amendment.

Mr. ANNESLEY SOMERVILLE: The Front Benches seem to be in agreement on this matter. We have heard from the hon. Member opposite that everybody in the House is likely to agree with him. I suppose that I shall be one against the whole House. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I regret the disappearance of whipping, at any rate as an alternative punishment for certain types of boys who commit certain types of offences. There are various things said about corporal punishment. There is a well-known old story about Professor Mahaffy and his great rival, Professor Traill of Trinity College, Dublin. They were discussing the question of corporal punishment and Professor Mahaffy said: "I do not believe in corporal punishment. I was once whipped for telling the truth." "Well," said Professor Traill, "it effectually cured you."
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has used certain arguments and it
seemed to me that some of them were mutually destructive. He said that it would not be consonant with the dignity if the House to accept the Amendment, seeing that the Committee upstairs was practically unanimous in condemnation of the use of the rod, as decided by the magistrates, and that the punishment would be too frightening and might cause resentment. Later on he said that whipping might possibly be too light a punishment. He cannot have it both ways. I have had some experience of boys and I always found that there are certain types of boys and certain types of offences in regard to which it is very much better to give the boys a good whipping, and say: "Now go away and do not do that again." The best and common sense way would be for the magistrate to take the boy into his private room and administer a whipping. It is said that the whipping should be administered in public, in court.

Mr. STANLEY: Nobody said that.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: I understood so. I think the hon. Member opposite said it.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: No.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: Then I apologise. The punishment would be administered in private. The Under-Secretary said that whipping might make a boy a hero. I do not agree with him. It would be much more likely to make him a hero if he was condemned to have some other sort of punishment. Even if I am alone in the House in expressing the opinion, I regret very much that the Under-Secretary has not seen fit to accept the Amendment.

Mr. CROOM-JOHNSON: I, too, regret the Government's decision, but I do so from a rather different standpoint. The situation at the moment is that crimes of violence among young people are, apparently, on the increase. It has been suggested to me that the power to order a whipping is very often known to these young people and that when they go before the court for the first time the fact that the magistrate has the power to order them to be whipped, and that he can tell them he has that power, acts extremely well upon a certain type of young person. It has been represented to me by some magistrates of experience that, while they would be ex-
tremely slow to order any punishment in the shape of whipping, they find that the fact that they can use this threat is one which assists them in the carrying out of their duties.
6.30 p.m.
Punishment by whipping is one which should be ordered with very great reluctance by any court, but I cannot help feeling that there are some types of young person to whom that form of punishment is perhaps most advantageous and most effectual. Those of us who have spent years in the administration or in assisting in the administration of the law know that some years ago there was a great recrudescence of crimes of violence, and it was only because certain judges decided that they would see whether they could make the only possible appeal to a bully, namely, by ordering him to be flogged, that the Garrotters Bill was passed and crimes of violence were very largely put down. The retention of these powers would be a good thing for the administration of justice and a good thing in the interests of these young people. The fact that the existing power is used less and less shows that it is being used with great discrimination and I hope with great reluctance, by those who have the power to order it. It is not because I have any particular theory about punishing young people or dealing with various types of offenders, but because I believe that this additional power, kept as it were in reserve, may in some instances do good that I regret the decision which has been reached by the Government to disagree with the Amendment.

Miss HORSBRUGH: I feel some diffidence in rising to support the Government because in another place it has been decided that girls should not be whipped. We have got so far. One of the main reasons why we should do away with the whipping of young offenders is that it has been proved to be a failure. The hon. and learned Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Croom-Johnson) spoke of the increase in crimes of violence. We shall have an increase in crimes of violence unless we train the young and punish them in the right way. If we continue this cheap and quick, and as I think useless punishment, of whipping we may watch the growth in this country of the very type of young men who may commit
crimes of violence later on. Hon. Members who have read lately in the Press the life history of some criminals must have been struck with the number of cases in which, when they were quite young boys and were first brought into the court, they received the punishment of whipping. No one who considers this subject carefully can think that a boy who has committed some offence will consider it a greater punishment to get six strokes with the birch than to be put on probation or sent to an approved school.
In punishing young offenders we have to look particularly to the training for the future. When they are young we get the chance to train them, and I do not think that we are taking that chance if we merely whip them and send them away. The great advantage of this Bill is that it gives young people who may commit some offence early in life a chance of leading a better life; it does not bring them into contact with the courts. It is not much use quoting figures and statistics but I believe that the majority of hon. Members will agree that whipping has been a failure in preventing crime. It is not sentimental or soft-hearted persons who want to abolish whipping. Some hon. Members during the Committee stage thought that I was not only a very hard-hearted woman but a woman who was so hard hearted that they were sorry to see me as a Member of the House of Commons. It is not because of sentiment or a soft heart that I am putting forward this view. It may be that it is because of the hardness of my heart, because I do not consider the punishment is sufficient; that it is out of date, and not the best way of treating the young people of this country. It has been said that whipping is being used much less than formerly; and, therefore, what does it matter? Perhaps in the very cases where it has been used it has been used on the wrong people. It may be ordered in cases where it is the worst form of punishment and, therefore, I hope the House will support the Under-Secretary in giving us a better standard of punishment for young people and a better chance to train them for the future.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: The Under-Secretary of State can rely on my supporting him in this matter, and I hope the House will support him also. I was rather taken aback by the speech of the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. A. Somerville). This
is a subject upon which I should be very much guided by the hon. Member, who has such a sage experience in the handling of boys. He is a schoolmaster, and after a lifetime of experience he comes to this House and says that he is in favour of whipping. I know many schoolmasters who would not support his view. I think that he made out a very poor case. The hon. and learned Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Croom-Johnson) is a King's Counsel and from his experience in the courts I should have expected him to put forward a more humane outlook on life, so far as young offenders are concerned. I want to register my most emphatic protest against this Amendment of the Lords. If ever there was a case for the abolition of the House of Lords this is it. Here are men who are set apart, supposed to be men with analytical minds, with judicial minds, not ordinary men, but men who are able to give unbiased decisions for the benefit of the common weal. The House of Commons is democratically elected to give expression to the will of the people. The House of Lords is not democratically elected. It is responsible to nobody but themselves. If they were dealing with their own sons or their own daughters I would not care; but they are dealing with the sons and daughters of my class, the working classes. None of the Lords would like to see their sons of eight years of age being birched. [Interruption.] Would you like to see your son being birched?

Mrs. COPELAND: Yes, if he deserved it.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Then you are saying what is not true. I have more respect for you than to think that. No man would hand over his child to another man to be birched—and to a man who is paid for the job. You are going back to the days of slavery when they tied men to the whipping post and whipped them. The Lords think they are living in that age yet. There are some people who would whip not only boys but men and women who dare to differ from them. That is not general to the House. There has never been so intolerant a House of Commons as the House to-day. This House is more intolerant than it was when I came here 10 years ago; and here we have the evidence of it in this Amendment.
Here is a Bill which a young Tory piloted through Committee, the Under-
Secretary of State. He gave us concessions and made speeches showing that it was a subject to which he had given some thought and that he had got away from the trammels which evidently are still afflicting the Lords. After all we have done, after all that the House has done, the Lords decide that a little boy of eight years of age is to be birched. Think of it, Mr. Speaker! Some poor little chap, who has never had a dog's chance in life, who has lived a life of poverty, who has never had a good feed, never known what it was to lie in a good bed, brought up under the most appalling conditions, the victim of this cruel system, which condemns thousands of children to live in the slums in our great industrial centres; and the Lords say that he is to be whipped by a constable, a man paid for doing the job. To show that they do not know what they are doing, they say that the parents may see their child whipped. What type of mind do they possess? What type of men are they? A low bestial mind. Think of a mother standing and looking at her own flesh and blood being whipped, under the Union Jack, in this land of liberty, this Christian land.
Where is all the Christian sentiment behind this? Where is this "love one another as I have loved you"? Is there any love there? Yet we are told we are not to have any sentiment. Is there any father here, I wonder? I am a father, and I have never whipped any of my boys, and they will compare favourably with the best in Britain- But I know that if I had been whipped when I was a boy I would have resented it. I know how it would have sunk into my being, and how. I would have hated it, hated the system that degraded me in that fashion. The less a boy feels he is being degraded the better. It is not merely a question of physical punishment. I could always stand any amount of physical punishment and can stand it yet. But I know that working-class boys have keener feelings than simply physical feelings; something deeper, something nobler inside them than that which would be indicated by simply resenting strokes of a birch-rod on their backs. It is the idea in the matter that counts. The Lords realise quite well to-day that they cannot crush -the working classes as they used to be able to do in bygone days. This Amend-
ment is evidence of that. They would like now to be able to whip the offending members of the working class who dares to assert his right as a man, because the lord considers himself a superior person, although I have never met that superior person yet.
What do we find with those who have taken pains about this business? What does Sir William Clarke Hall say? He found that in 1915 and 1916, at Old Street, 99 boys were birched and that 35 who had been birched were re-charged later. This percentage of convictions was higher than for any other method of treatment. Then let us turn to the report of the Board of Education on the juvenile courts in four towns, which shows that 25 per cent. of the boys birched were re-charged within a month. On 21st January last the Recorder of Leeds, after having heard a joint charge against three boys and some adults, sentenced the three boys to a birching. On 12th February the same three boys were charged again with another similar offence committed after the previous sentence. Probation officers are practically unanimous in condemning birching. They find that it renders their task more difficult. Many of the worst boys for whom whipping is often advocated have been thrashed again and again by parents, and they regard a court whipping as a joke. It is a most unequal punishment. It means nothing to some boys, but it is a torture and a humiliation to others. Dr. Cyril Burt—you should read his book—while admitting that there may be a few cases and a few offences for which corporal punishment may prove a useful deterrent—he refers to cases of cruelty and wanton destructiveness of the kind quoted by Lord Atkin in his speech of 9th June—says:
The infliction of pain is a negative and desperate form of discipline to be applied only as a last and exceptional resort. Once the boy has been flogged the psychologist finds it is hard for him to regain his confidence, and reawaken his self-respect. When all is said, in 99 cases out of 100 corporal punishment, however inflicted, is likely to make the recipient not more amenable to discipline but more defiant. Courts have no means of knowing beforehand whether the boy is one of the 99 on whom it will have disastrous affects, and now that the punishment is almost abandoned the courts which still exercise the powers of birching are the very courts which make little inquiry or discrimination.
If this matter comes to a division I hope that Members before they Vote for birching will have due regard to those authorities which I have quoted. In this Bill we have got an extension of one year, from seven to eight, as the age before which a child cannot be brought before the court. We have also got concessions as far as habitual criminals are concerned. We have not got all we should have liked, and for myself I wanted to see it improved still further. But there was one outstanding matter which I thought we were going to eliminate entirely, and that was the birching of working-class boys. Others have taken exceptions to my stating that, but it is the working-class boys who are to be birched by the policeman, and I would ask the House just to have in their mind's eye the poor chance these boys have had. The Under-Secretary of State has made provisions whereby those boys will be treated to-day in a more intelligent and humane fashion. You have to remember in speaking of bad boys, that time and time again in this country the bad boy has become a great man, and you have to be careful that you do not make a mistake. All the evidence I have been able to get is against whipping and in favour of treating the boy in a more humane manner. The Under-Secretary in this matter can depend upon me supporting him against the House of Lords.

Mr. LAWSON: I wish to add my congratulations to those which have come from various parts of the House to the Under-Secretary on the decision that the Government should disagree with this Amendment. As one who heard his speech on the Second Reading I thought his analysis of the various types of cases dealt with, and his arguments against whipping, were so cogent and expressed so well the sense of this House, that after this Bill left us I thought we would hear no more about whipping in these circumstances. I think the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. A. Somerville) altogether missed the point of the Under-Secretary, for both in his Second Reading speech and to-night he made a very definite distinction between a father punishing his child or the master punishing a child and a child being whipped by a policeman under order of a court. Of course there are all kinds of opinions about punishment in general. I come of a fairly sound stock and I knew what
discipline was, and I even got all I deserved and some more. I remember being what my parents called "walloped," and it was the best part of my education. But this is the case of boys being whipped by a constable by order of a court, and it is in a different category altogether. I do not think that the views expressed by the hon. Member for Windsor or by others have met that position, and it seems to me it has not been met in the other House.
7.0 p.m.
What is the real position? The court can order whipping for a first offence, and for almost any type of offence. I ask the House to bear in mind that the case mentioned in the other House was that of boys who had mutilated some sheep and that for an offence of that kind it was said that these boys should be sentenced to six strokes of the rod. I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman quite rightly said that that type of offence is not one for whipping at all. I have in mind a case in which three boys, one ten years of age and two 11 years of age, of proved and unchallenged good character were, for a first offence, sent by a juvenile court to receive six strokes of the birch from a constable. The Noble Lords used this case of sheep mutilation in support of their position and to justify whipping. The magistrate in another part of the country for a. first offence sentenced boys who had stolen some essence of ginger beer to be birched. I ask the House to note the fact that although public opinion expressed itself there was no means of making a real protest against it. The whole of the north of England was against the sentence, and newspapers of all political colours protested against it. It could not be raised here, and once the sentence was carried out there was no means of making a real protest against it; and yet these boys have it against them that they have been whipped in a cell by a constable.
I submit it is time we ended that kind of punishment and took that power away from the magistrates. It is quite true that magistrates do not sentence juveniles to be birched very often, but there is distinct proof, in the particular case I have mentioned, that sometimes it can be used very unwisely. I therefore think the Government are to be congratulated
on standing against the continuance of this power in the hands of the magistrates. It is not a test of discipline or a question of namby-pamby treatment; it is a test of common sense. As one who does not undervalue discipline I should say in this case that members of the other House are half a century too late and too old to give adequate consideration to this problem.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir VIVIAN HENDER-SON: I am very glad that the Undersecretary has asked the House to disagree with this particular Amendment, because I am certain that the sentence of whipping by juvenile courts is neither a punishment nor a deterrent. Unlike the hon. and learned Member who sits on my right, I am not acquainted with the everyday administration of justice, but I have had a good deal to do with the work both of the Home Office schools and Borstal institutions, and the one difficulty which faces both institutions is that they do not receive lads for training as soon as they ought to. Courts of summary jurisdiction are continually giving sentences either of whipping or putting lads on probation, so that when they eventually come for training they are very often past training. If anything can be done to take away a power like this from the juvenile courts, I am perfectly certain it would be a good thing and it might encourage the courts to send lads for proper training earlier than they would otherwise do.

Mr. RAIKES: Unlike the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood), I have in my time enjoyed the pleasure of being whipped. I cannot say that whipping did me any harm, and indeed it probably did me good. I think the hon. Member is a little bit unfair on the Lords in the observations he has made, because after all almost all of them in their own time have been whipped, and if they prescribe the remedy which they enjoyed themselves they are at least consistent. I agree with the hon. Member that a constable did not whip them, but they were whipped by somebody who whipped considerably harder than the constable. My only reason for rising is that I feel there are two kinds of cases for which whipping still is or may be a deterrent. I quite agree that it is far
better, as far as possible, to allow parents to deal with their children and to whip them if necessary, but you get the case of a spoilt boy whose parents will not do anything to keep him in order. He may not be a vicious or bad boy, but he gets into trouble and a "hiding" at home early on might very well put him right. You do not want to take him away and send him to an industrial school, and he is just the type that should be whipped before he develops worse tendencies. You have cases of cruelty, and there I differ with the Under-Secretary, because I believe that where you have got in a young boy a vicious tendency towards cruelty to animals in some cases much the best way to stop him is to make him feel it through his own hide. Our courts are on the whole intelligent courts and are not anxious to whip children. They are careful and they do it very little. Surely they might be allowed to have just this little bit of power of using their own discretion to deal with exceptional cases by means of exceptional measures?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Ramsbotham): The remarks which fell a short while ago from the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Croom-Johnson) prompt me to detain the House for a few minutes before it comes to a decision. If I understood his argument aright it was that magistrates now possessed in the power of whipping a very valuable weapon to hold in reserve and to exercise only sparingly. That struck me as a specious, attractive and somewhat plausible argument, but it seems to me that there is far greater danger in that power than benefit, because it has the result of inducing magistrates to inflict less effective penalties, such as whipping is, when they ought to use other penalties. As has been pointed out, cases which should come to approved schools or Borstal institutions, are in fact dealt with by the penalty of whipping, which is easy and prompt, but are not thereby so effectively dealt with. They are cases in which the wrong remedy is used. I am in disagreement with the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. A. Somerville), though I know he has had certain disciplinary experience in this matter, but I am not quite sure whether his scholastic duties ever empowered him to inflict penalties.
Perhaps I may quote what Dr. Johnson said about 150 years ago:
Sir, There is now less flogging in our great schools than formerly, but less is learned. What the boys no longer get at one end they lose at the other.
That leads me to my final point. In discussing this, is it not a fact that those who advocate the retention of this penalty mix up and confuse the infliction of whipping by parents and school-masters with whipping by the courts? It seems to me that the two are entirely distinct, and if they are not separated in our minds we shall certainly come to a confusion of thought. I hope the House will keep these two things in distinct categories, so that we do not confuse what may be salutary as a correction in the case of a parent or schoolmaster with the infliction of a similar penalty by a constable on the direction of a court of law.

Mrs. WARD: The Under-Secretary has asked the House to reject this Amendment, not because so much whipping in itself is wrong. I do not agree with those who brag that they have never been whipped or that whipping should not be allowed. I believe a good sound whipping occasionally does every child good, and that we ought not to be too namby-pamby about this idea of whipping. We can be rather too lenient with a naughty child and I think whipping occasionally a very good thing. The hon. Member for South East Essex (Mr. Raikes) said he enjoyed his whipping and the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirk-wood) said he had never had a whipping. It is obvious that neither of these hon. Members was of the type that needed whipping. One enjoyed it and the other never had it. There has been a great deal of talk about whipping for the right type of child, but the weakness I see in giving powers to magistrates to inflict whipping is that there is no definition of what is the right type of child.
As a mother I am of opinion that no one is capable of deciding whether whipping is going to do a child good except those who live with it and know its temperament. After all, punishment ought to do two things. It should prevent a child from repeating the naughty thing it had already done, and at the same time it should not spoil the child in its future life.
One holds a very responsible position in inflicting punishment on any young person. The great thing is to see to it that nothing which you do will prevent that child from growing into a useful citizen. There has been a great deal of talk by the hon. Member for Dumbarton about bad boys but I believe that no amount of whipping will cure bad boys. Bad boys are born bad and I do not think that you can cure them. Therefore I agree with the Under-Secretary when he says that whipping can do no good to boys who are cruel to sheep, for instance, and that they ought to be sent to some institution. There is a great deal of difference between badness and mischief and many children commit crimes not from any sense of evil but from a sense of adventure. I am pleased that the Under-Secretary has asked the House to resist the Lords Amendment because I believe that to give the power of whipping to a public body who have no real understanding of the child's temperament is not only barbaric but very brutal.

Mr. EDWARD WILLIAMS: I wish to congratulate the Under-Secretary to the Home Office on resisting the Amendment from another place. It is difficult to comprehend how intelligent men and women can think that flogging will do any good, even to those who are designated "bad boys." The problem is entirely one of psychology and flogging is an easy method of dealing with it. It is the method which disposes of the matter somehow, within a few moments, instead of facing the causes which produce characteristics in the boy or, for that matter, in the girl, which are unsocial or antisocial. If we had better recreational facilities, particularly in our large cities, boys and girls could be kept off the streets. We have, of course, approved schools but we ought to have schools under the charge of eminent psychologists. The name of Mr. Cyril Burt has been mentioned and I should like every Member of the House to read his work, "The Young Delinquent." It is the work of one who is, perhaps, the most eminent practical psychologist in Britain and if hon. Members studied it, I think those who are in favour of the Lords Amendment would take a different point of view. Biology has not been taught in our schools and in connection with that subject there are many sub-sciences that
ought to be explained to and understood by our young people. Atavism is a fact and the line of demarcation between the genius and the idiot is so thin that it is a problem for the psychologist. To support flogging is just doing a lazy man's job. It needs no thought. A brute can do it and somehow, sometimes, in certain circumstances, much of the brute comes to the surface even in those who may be termed refined people.
It is certainly not manly or womanly to beat a child. I speak as a father and I have never had occasion to hurt my children. They have been given freedom to move as grown-ups. They have been treated by my wife and by me as if they were intelligent people living in an intellectual world, where they can participate in discussions which are suitable to them. I believe that by listening to what we have to say, when we are talking of sensible things, it is possible for children to arrive at an understanding of the meaning of responsibility and proper conduct. I trust that the House will accept what the Under-Secretary has said, not only to-day but in his really brilliant speech on the Second Reading. He has met very fully all that has been said about the different types of children. I hope that magistrates will not at any time have these floggings, and I trust that in the future, perhaps in amending Measures on this subject, we shall be able to discuss other courses, other types of schools, other methods of dealing with the delinquent child. Meanwhile, poverty has much to do with the problem. Bad environment has much to do with it. Much of what we are is the result of environment, and, if we can produce the environment which will tend to a higher standard of culture, if we can permit the child to have better recreational facilities and teach it to do things upon right lines, I am inclined to believe that we shall have fewer and fewer bad boys and bad girls.

Mr. HALES: I have been wondering, Mr. Speaker, if you have in your possession a Book of Holy Writ in which I could find a quotation about sparing the rod and spoiling the child. I think it was Solomon who uttered those words and I ask has humanity altered very much since those words were spoken? The hon. Lady the Member for Cannock (Mrs. Ward) said it was difficult to find the type
of child who deserved flogging. My father discovered it half a century ago. He found that I was of the type which required flogging and he proved conclusively that the flogging was necessary—and see what a success has resulted from the procedure. In my early days, whatever mischief happened in our house, I was always accused of it, and morning after morning I was turned over and had that administered to me which I often did not deserve. I well remember my tenth birthday. I used to keep on sleeping or pretending to sleep as long as possible every morning, because I knew that directly I got up I was to be thrashed. On that particular morning they woke me up and to my unutterable relief I found that it was for the purpose of giving me a birthday present.
It has been said by some members of the medical profession that wickedness is not a subject for chastisement but for mental treatment, and it is suggested that by some mental operation, by removing something from the brain, it is possible to turn even a man like myself into a respectable member of society. There may be a great deal in that theory, and I have no doubt that further research will enable us to see more clearly how to deal with malefactors and children of the unruly age or children of any age who appear to need correction. The parent and the child look at this matter from very different points of view. They see it in a totally different perspective. With my own offspring I have tried both ways. The hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. E. Williams) said that he never had occasion to chastise his children. I am afraid that I cannot hold myself up to his level. I am afraid that I have found it necessary to do so, to my own great discomfort, though when my own father told me, "This hurts me more than you," I never believed him.
On one occasion, however, I thought I would try other measures of correction. In the case of a boy aged about nine, who was in the habit of helping himself out of the sugar basin in the absence of his mother, I warned him three or four times that if he did it again I would give him mustard to eat. He did it again and then I put some mustard on a piece of ham and made him eat it. To my great surprise he asked for more. I did not know how to deal with him after that. When a boy develops a liking for
mustard it is difficult to know what to do with him. But I think it would be a hardship on this generation if they were denied the privilege of thrashing their children just as they were thrashed by their parents. I think we have a right to retain that privilege. No matter how civilisation progresses we must apply the rod or we shall certainly spoil the child, and it will be many generations before we can dispense with that method of correction.
At a further stage in life it is only the fear of personal punishment that deters certain types of men from ill deeds. Take the garrotting cases in Manchester in the old days. The cat-o'-nine-tails was the one measure which stamped out that nefarious practice, and in these days of "smash-and-grab" raids and attacks upon defenceless women and children, which are becoming such a menace, I would put up both hands for the reintroduction of the cat-o'-nine-tails for the punishment of men convicted of offences of that description. As I have said, it is doubtful which method is best adapted to the child, but there is one point to which I would like to refer. Up to the present we have spoken only of boys as if this problem did not concern girls at all. There are many girls worse than boys and although there are some honourable ladies present, I would say that I have heard of girls riding on donkeys and sticking pins in the donkeys in order to see what the effect would be. I think that is a wicked business and I think that sometimes a good slapping for a girl under the age of 12 will certainly do her good and may help to make her into a good wife and mother in the future.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. JANNER: I do not know whether I should have risen but for the fact that while I was listening to the remarks of the hon. Member who has just sat down, I wondered whether he himself might be a magistrate either to-day or at some future date, and if he and people who hold similar views to his became magistrates, with jurisdiction in the juvenile courts, I wondered what would be the fate of a child who was brought before them for correction. It is because of the fact that human ideas with regard to questions of correction differ so widely that it is not safe to put in the hands of any set of magistrates, no matter what other abilities they may have, discretion
in this matter. I do not say that my hon. Friend opposite is vicious in his views, but merely that he holds the wrong view on this matter, and I think the major portion of the House will have been similarly influenced by the speeches of those who are opposed to the Motion moved by the Under-Secretary of State.
Two things should be very carefully considered in dealing with this question, and the first is that whipping is not so much a question of pain. Hon. Members have been bringing forward illustrations of the flogging of vicious criminals, but we are not dealing here with the question of flogging in the sense that it creates an impression of such extreme pain that that person will not do the same thing again. We are dealing here with whipping a child, and that whipping is forgotten, the physical pain is forgotten, as some of those hon. Members who have spoken have forgotten their various whippings, but the danger lies in the very important effect that the whipping may have on the mentality of the child. The danger lies in the fact that when a child is whipped by an officer of a court—and, after all, the intention of the Bill is to deal with the psychological effect upon the child—it may mean that that will remain in his memory till the very last day of his life, and if it does, it would be of such an injurious nature in the case of some children that it would bring continual mental torture in its wake. In many instances it would not only not have the effect of bringing the child into better ways, but it might make that child feel that, after all, it was not worth while to reform, as the worst that could happen had happened to him; and he would continue in his old ways.

Mr. HALES: What about Solomon?

Mr. JANNER: I am in a position to disagree with Solomon, because I am almost in the direct line of descent, but I do not disagree with Solomon to this extent. I have no recollection that at the time of King Solomon juvenile courts had been instituted, nor indeed that this method of birching had been suggested for dealing with children as it is suggested here. To be perfectly serious, however, you have to face this important issue: Is it not better even, to put it at the very worst possible, that 12 children who deserve whipping should escape that penalty than that one child's life should
be ruined by the fact that it was wrongly whipped? In these circumstances, I say that the Committee should accept the opinion that has been put forward by the Under-Secretary of State in all its fullness, definitely and finally.
It is not that the Lords have intended to exercise, as one hon. Member would have us believe, a great and mighty power over the child of the working class. I am not convinced that the child of the working class is meant, when juvenile courts are being considered, any more than the child of any other class. I do not believe that the child of the working class is any more vicious and comes any more frequently, proportionately speaking, before the juvenile courts than the child of any other class. It is nonsense and monstrous to introduce these things into this question. The child as a whole is being considered, and indeed, if it is a question of inflicting pain, the child who had been more used to buffeting and knocking about would not feel the pain so much if that pain were inflicted as the child who had not been so brought up, but it is the mentality of the child, whatever its class, that we are concerned with; and I hope that those who have opposed the Motion of the Under-Secretary of State will not press their opposition to a division, but will accept the view which is obviously paramount here and will realise that the intention of the Under-Secretary of State is an exceedingly good one and should be supported as fully as possible.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: I came hurrying down from the Committee Room upstairs in order to support the Government in carrying this Amendment from the Lords, but I was amazed to find that the National Government proposed to ask the House to reject the Lords Amendment. I could not believe that a National Government could reject such a sensible Amendment. I could not imagine that so virile a thing as a National Government, representing Great Britain, the most virile of nationalities could say that a properly constituted court should be forbidden any discretion to give six smacks with the birch to a very naughty boy. [An HON. MEMBER: "Nonsense."] Somebody says "Nonsense," but it is nonsense for him to say so. [Interruption.] I am sure the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood), who
interrupts, would give any naughty boy a smack in a minute, because he is or the same robust constitution as I am myself.
We have heard of the unfair privilege of the rich and the well-to-do, but there is not a person who has ever been to any of the richer seminaries of this country who has not been thoroughly well birched, and I think I heard the Under-Secretary of State himself, on a former occasion, say that he had derived great benefit from having been whipped. He did not say so himself, but we believe that he would not be the very excellent fellow that he is if he had not been well birched. I greatly object to the idea of class distinction of any kind, but if you could say that there is one class of the community which is perhaps better than any other class, less snobbish and a better style of person, I would pick out the naval officer. I have always been told, when I have asked people connected with the Navy why the naval officer as a class was so efficient, so unassuming, non snobbish, and so acceptable to all classes of society, that the reason was that practically every day of his life as a midshipman he had been well birched. There you are, and why should you withdraw this discretionary power from a court? I think that as a rule magistrates are reasonable people, and if they were trying to exceed their jurisdiction, I have no doubt that some court of appeal could put them right.

Mr. JANNER: I do not know how my hon. Friend proposes that a court of appeal should be able to withdraw the whippings that had been given to a boy already.

Sir W. DAVISON: If a court of magistrates was in the habit of ordering whipping unjustly, I feel sure that the attention of some appeal court or the Home Office would be drawn to it, so that that a miscarriage of justice would be stopped; and I think that interruption was not very material. My recollection goes back to a month or two ago, when there was a most deplorable case of boys killing sheep and calves by beating them with iron bars—a most horrible case of brutality—and we know that there are cases of brutality of that kind. Do you mean to tell me that boys who do such an act as that should not be whipped? I am glad to say it is not common, though, mind you, young boys of all classes are perhaps the cruelest thing in creation. [An HON.
MEMBER: "And girls."] We are not concerned with girls on this Amendment, and if we were, we should have to call in our lady Members to deal with the matter. We are only concerned now with the male sex, and many boys, as we know, are very cruel.
Most of the magistrates are very much like ourselves, and can be trusted to exercise their jurisdiction fairly, and it is monstrous to say that boys like that should not have up to six strokes with the birch-rod. We have recently seen in the papers how certain boys from Eton got very excited at a cricket match at Winchester, and did certain damage to a railway carriage on their way back to Eton, breaking windows and so on. There has been no talk of any injustice, and every one of those boys has been soundly birched, and has received a good many more than six strokes with the birch. There is no outcry throughout the country about this terrible abuse of authority. [Interruption.] I do not care who administers the birch, and I venture to say that anyone who has seen the birch administered in a public school will say that it is much more thoroughly done by a headmaster than by most other people.
Do let us get back to the facts of the case. Where you have a cruel boy, it is not only kinder, but better, that he should receive not more, according to the Lords Amendment, than six strokes with the birch-rod, and I say that it is a reflection on the magistrates of this country if you cannot trust them to give a sentence of up to six strokes with the birch-rod to a boy who has been cruel and has been guilty of acts such as smashing animals' heads with an iron bar. This House, I am afraid, has become so namby-pamby that the public will feel it is not fit any longer to govern the country, and if anyone will go with me, I shall go into the Lobby in support of this very sensible proposal of the House of Lords.

Mr. TINKER: I want to speak in opposition to the last speaker, for several reasons. First of all, he said he Was amazed that we had attempted to alter the Lords decision, but when the Bill went up to the Lords it included the Clause to stop any birching at all, and the Lords have overruled the Commons in this matter. If only on that ground, I should be strongly opposed to anything that the Lords recommended to this House.

Sir W. DAVISON: I am not so touchy as that.

Mr. TINKER: Probably not, because generally the Lords are of the hon. Member's way of thinking, but whatever the Lords do, I always think it is against the policy that we on these benches advocate. Secondly, I think that as we advance in civilisation, the kind of thing that might have been appropriate and fitting in times gone by is no longer required, and a child can be far better dealt with nowadays without the use of force. Any child who has been to school knows very well that the administration of the cane or the birch leaves a very bad impression on the mind, and a teacher does far more good with a child at school by persuasion than by using the cane. In this case also far more good would be done by eliminating altogether the use of the birch. I am pleased that I am able to go with the National Government on this Amendment. When I read the Debate in the Lords when they decided to insert this Amendment, I wondered whether the Government would be firm and stand against it. I am glad that the Under-Secretary has done this and that he is so progressive as to stand by what the Commons have already decided.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: I am surprised at the line of argument of the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken. He supports the Government because another place has reversed our decision. I hope the hon. Member will keep that in mind when we are dealing with later Amendments. I regret the decision of the Government because in some cases benches will be forced because of the circumstances to inflict punishment of another kind. If we withdraw from the court the power of inflicting in appropriate cases some form of physical punishment, the alternative is that some of the young people will be sent to some place of detention. The worst thing that can be done is to send anybody to gaol or a place of detention for the first time.

Mr. STANLEY: We are talking about children under 14, who cannot be sent to gaol or to any equivalent.

Mr. WILLIAMS: They can be sent to a place of detention where they are brought under a system of control where they lose their freedom. Give it any fancy name you like.

Mr. STANLEY: When I was at a public school, and for three terms a year lost my liberty, would the hon. Member say that I was in gaol?

Mr. WILLIAMS: The deprivation of liberty in school is not the same as deprivation of liberty in a place where people are put because they have offended against the community and are subject to a degree of restraint which is not true of the ordinary school. We hear this vague sentimentality about punishment of the body, and yet people are willing to inflict a much more dreadful punishment to the mind. This is a misguided form of sentimentality, and probably if we decide to-day to disagree with this Amendment many people will become criminals who would have been saved if there had been a little bit of appropriate punishment at the right moment.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 14, line 11, agreed to.

CLAUSE 21.—(Principles to be observed by courts in dealing with children and young persons.)

Lords Amendment: In page 15, line 7, at the end, insert:

NEW CLAUSE A.—("Conviction" and "sentence" not to be used in relation to juveniles dealt with summarily.)

The words "conviction" and "sentence" shall cease to be used in relation to children and young persons dealt with summarily and any reference in any enactment to a person convicted, a conviction or a sentence shall, in the case of a child or young person, be construed as including a reference to a person found guilty of an offence, a finding of guilt or an order made upon such a finding, as the case may be:

Provided that for the purposes of paragraph (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section ten of the Criminal Justice Administration Act, 1914 (which relates to the power to send youthful delinquents to Borstal Institutions) a finding that a person is guilty of an offence shall not have the effect of a conviction if he is dealt with for that offence under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1907.

Mr. STANLEY: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
Hon. Members who were on the Committee on the Bill will remember that we
discussed at some length the question of convictions in juvenile courts. It was a matter with which I had a considerable amount to do when I was engaged in the preparation of the Bill. Representations were made to me from a good many quarters connected with work of this kind that convictions should disappear. I had a prejudice, which may be an old-fashioned one, against putting into a Bill something which does not mean anything. The Clause with which we are now asked to agree, and which was a Clause I was originally ask to put in the Bill, means absolutely nothing. I had made the offer, if it were felt, as it was in some quarters, that these words are perhaps too reminiscent of the ordinary criminal courts, and that merely for the conduct of proceedings some other words should be substituted for them, to see that in the regulations that are to be issued in connection with this Bill that point should be dealt with. I refused at the time to put into a Bill for which I was responsible words which meant nothing and had no executive effect, but which might have the danger of inducing courts, which are loath to believe that Parliament passes meaningless Clauses, to find some meaning in them.
Hon. Members will find that in this Clause, which has been introduced in the other place, every care has been taken to ensure that it shall mean nothing, and the language in the latter part of the Clause makes it certain that, although these words are never to be used again, the words to be used instead of them shall have exactly the same meaning in reference to any Act of Parliament which has ever been passed. I do not mind now. The responsibility for introducing meaningless words in an Act of Parliament is not mine any longer. It comes from another place, where prejudice against verbiage is not as great as it is here. As such care has been taken to make certain that it means nothing and therefore can do no harm to anybody, and under a quite pathetic idea that it will please a number of people who think that it does mean something, I advise the House to agree with the Lords in this Amendment.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I am glad that I am able to agree with the other place on this issue. Boys who have been sentenced and convicted in their child-
hood for trivial offences often find later on that they cannot secure admission into the Dominions or foreign countries, and I am informed that these convictions and sentences have prevented boys later on in life joining either the Navy or the Air Force, although, strangely enough, they can join the Army. I believe that there is much more in this new Clause than the Under-Secretary thinks, and for once in my life I think that their Lordships are a little more advanced than the Commons. This new Clause is very much on the lines that we ourselves moved in Committee upstairs.

Mr. STANLEY: The Clause which the hon. Member moved in Committee would have meant something, although it was something bad.

Mr. DAVIES: I am evidently more intelligent than the people in the other place. We have more in this new Clause than the hon. Gentleman believes, and I am glad that he is accepting it.

Mr. LOGAN: I am glad to be able to find myself in agreement with the suggestion of the Lords. I was personally interested in this particular proposal, and I was fully convinced that the safeguards which the Under-Secretary promised would cover the point I raised, but this new Clause covers what I wanted and removes an injustice.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 19, line 8, agreed to.

CLAUSE 27.—(Contents of approved school orders.)

Lords Amendment: In page 19, line 19, at the end, insert:
Provided that in the case of a child or young person not resident in England, the order stall, instead of naming a local authority state that he was resident outside England.

Mr. STANLEY: I beg to move,, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
8.0 p.m.
This is the first of a number of Amendments which are scattered over the Paper to deal with the situation of a Scottish boy resident in Scotland who crosses the Boarder, commits an offence, is brought before an English Court, and is con-
sidered suitable to be sent to an approved school. The difficulty at the moment is that Scotland will have a Bill of its own, and it will be impossible to apply this Bill to that country. When an errant Scottish boy crosses the Border he should be sent back to be put into an approved school. Although Scotsmen when they cross the Border seem reluctant to return to their native land, I feel sure that no Scotsman would like a Scottish boy to be left in an English approved school although it may mean something on the local rates when the boy is returned to his native country.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 28, line 11, agreed to.

CLAUSE 34.—(Contributions by local authorities in respect of persons sent to approved schools.)

Lords Amendment: In page 28, leave out lines 12 to 15, and insert:
Notice of any appeal under this Subsection shall be given to the other local authority concerned, if any, and to the clerk of the court, and the clerk of the court shall give to the parties to the appeal fourteen days' notice of the date fixed by the court for the hearing thereof.

Mr. STANLEY: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is only an Amendment of procedure, which will lead to simplification. It will give the clerk of the court power to notify the parties concerned, and may in certain circumstances save time and expense.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 28, line 34, agreed to.

CLAUSE 37.—(Provision of remand homes by councils of counties and county boroughs.)

Lords Amendment: In page 30, line 26, after the word "homes," insert:
Provided that where a place or places of detention have been provided under the principal Act which are suitable for use as remand homes and so long as such place or places are adequately maintained they shall be deemed to be remand homes and there shall be no obligation on any council to provide further or additional accommodation in pursuance of this Section.

Mr. STANLEY: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
I think the whole conception on which this Amendment was moved was erroneous, and certainly the Amendment itself is framed in such a way as to show that the real position as regards places of detention and remand homes was not appreciated. There has been up to now an obligation upon the police authorities to provide and maintain places of detention under this Bill and now a similar obligation is placed upon local authorities to provide remand homes. The fear in the other place is that in some way or other this is going to cause more expense. It does nothing of the kind. A remand home and a place of detention are for exactly the same purpose though called by different names. They are going to be maintained by different authorities, but the standard of efficiency which the Home Office requires of a place of detention is no less and no greater than the standard which the Statute and the Home Office will require of remand homes. In any case the fears of another place were quite unnecessary, and any Amendment was really unnecessary, but the particular Amendment which they have made, and with which I am asking this House to disagree, is in any case impossible, because it presupposes that every place which up to now has been used as a place of detention will, when this Measure comes into operation, be available to be used as a remand home. That overlooks the fact that up to now places of detention have been the responsibility of the police authorities.
Remand homes will be the responsibility of the local authorities, and it may well be that the police authorities may not be willing to transfer places now used as places of detention to the local authorities, because they may have some alternative use for it. Whether or not that is ever likely to happen in practice I do not know, but the local authority, the county council, for instance, will have no authority to demand that the place hitherto under the control of the police authority shall be transferred to them. That is why it is impossible to accept this Amendment, because hon. Members will see that if it were possible to say that a certain building which the police autority have hitherto maintained as a
place of detention, but which they refuse to transfer to the local authority, is still kept in being for some quite different purpose, it could still be deemed to be a remand home, and no further provision would have to be made for a remand home in that district. For these two reasons, first, that I think the fears expressed in another place were quite groundless, because no new obligation is put on local authorities as a whole, the obligation only being transferred from one authority to another, and because the particular Amendment is in form quite impracticable I ask the House to disagree with it.

Subsequent Lords Amendments, to page 31, line 43, agreed to.

CLAUSE 43.—(Provision of approved schools by local authorities.)

Lords Amendment: In page 33, line 21, at the end, insert:
Provided that, before giving Ms approval, the Secretary of State shall satisfy himself that the proposed expenditure is reasonable and, where it is proposed to purchase, build or establish a new school, that there is a deficiency of approved school accommodation which cannot properly be remedied in any other way.

Mr. STANLEY: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
I think I ought to offer a word of explanation on this Amendment, although I am asking this House to agree with it. Under the old Act, which is renewed in this Bill, the obligation of providing approved school accommodation or, as it used to be called, industrial and reformatory school accommodation, is imposed on the local authorities. Now, for the first time, although this obligation has been in existence for many years, it was thought necessary to put in a provision that before an approved school is built the Secretary of State shall satisfy himself that it is wanted and that there is not an empty approved school next door which would suit just as well. That might give rise to the idea that it has been the practice to build approved schools that were not wanted and for the Home Office to encourage local autho-
rities in. so doing. Of course, there never has been any question that that was so. The obligation which is on local authorities at the moment is only to provide accommodation where it is needed.
We should never attempt to urge local authorities to build accommodation if it were not needed, and, as hon. Members know, the whole tendency in past years has been not to build more schools, but to close existing ones. Still, in the other place it was felt that in dealing with matters of this kind one cannot be too cautious, and that a time might come when a local authority, in what would seem to be a fit of mania, would want to build an approved school which nobody required, and that a Home Secretary, catching the disease, would apparently encourage them to do so. I have no hesitation in accepting the words of the Amendment, which only carry out what has been the practice of the Home Office for many years, but I should not like the House to think that it was another place which suggested to us for the first time that when before we consent to approved school accommodation being provided, we ought first to find out whether it is wanted.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I should very much object to the acceptance of this Amendment if I thought the words meant anything. Any Member of this House who might sit in the Home Office at any future time and had to decide whether or not a new school were required in a certain place could drive a carriage and pair through the whole of this new Clause. It states that the Secretary of State, before giving his approval, is to satisfy himself that the proposed expenditure is reasonable. One Secretary of State would regard the expenditure of £2,000 as reasonable, and another Secretary of State might regard £5,000 as reasonable for exactly the same object. This Amendment seems to be more of a hint to the Government to economise than a piece of legislation. I am rather astonished that their Lordships should take the trouble to draft it, because it is more in the nature of a letter than a legal enactment.

CLAUSE 44.—(Power to send, children and young persons from Northern Ireland, Isle of Man and Channel Islands to approved schools in Great Britain.)

Lords Amendment: In page 33, line 28, after the second word "in" insert "Scotland or."

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—[Mr. Stanley.]

Mr. KIRKW00D: Perhaps the Undersecretary of State for Scotland will tell us what is meant by inserting this reference to Scotland.

Mr. STANLEY: Perhaps I ought to reply to that question. This is a consequential Amendment, which will enable us to transfer to Scotland Scots boys who have been sent to approved schools in England, a course with which the hon. Member will, I am sure, agree.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 34, line 41, agreed to.

CLAUSE 47.—(Control over homes.)

Lords Amendment: In page 37, line 2, after the word "State" insert:
cause a summons to be served upon the person in charge of the institution, and upon such other persons as the court may direct, and upon the hearing of the summons may, if they think fit.

Mr. STANLEY: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This deals with the procedure in the case of voluntary homes. Where it is necessary to bring the board of management before the court, we felt that it would be sufficient if the manager, and as many other persons as the court might direct, should be seen, and not, as at the moment, to serve a series of summonses upon every single person who happens to be on the management board. It will be open to the court subsequently at any time, if they want to bring the other managers of the school before them, to do so.

CLAUSE 48.—(Restrictions on employment of children.)

Lords Amendment: In page 37, line 42, leave out from the beginning to the end of line 2, in page 38.

Mr. STANLEY: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
Clause 48 of the Bill, which deals with employment, lays it down as a specific rule that no child under the age of 12 years shall be employed. It then continues with a proviso that by-laws made under the next succeeding Clause may authorise the employment of children under the age of 12 years by their parents or guardians. It is that proviso which has been cut out by the Amendment that we are now discussing. I propose to restore the proviso to the Bill, with the addition of the words, "in light agricultural or horticultural work." It has been thought wise in another place to remove the permission for the employment of children by parents or guardians altogether. This Amendment would restore it, with the limitation that it is to be employment only in light agricultural or horticultural work.
I think there was misconception, in some minds at any rate, when this matter was being discussed in another place, as it was clearly considered that the Bill gave power to parents to authorise their children to be employed by somebody else, as, of course, has never been the case. The effect of accepting the Lords Amendment and of cutting out altogether employment of children under 12 by their parents, would stop what I believe is a thing which nobody desires, to stop, and that is fruit picking, hop picking and the ordinary light work around the farm. If a father and mother are going out vegetable picking in the season, they might just as well take their children under 12. No one could possibly object that it is work of a character which is injurious to them. Probably it is very healthy. No one, for instance, could suggest that, during the holidays, children who live on a farm should not be employed in light agricultural work about that farm. We have sanctioned a number of by-laws authorising the employment of children under 12 by their parents. There are very few areas, and, except in two or three cases, they are confined to employment in these light agricultural or horticultural occupations.
The effect of the House accepting my proposal would be that, in a few areas, where by-laws have been passed allowing employment in other occupations—in some cases in shops and in other cases in dairy
or newspaper work—those by-laws will, of course be ultra vires, when this Bill passes. With that limitation, and leaving employment in the garden or the field free, although under by-laws authorising that and sanctioned by the Secretary of State, I hope that the House will accept the Amendment which I have moved.

Mr. RHYS DAV1ES: This is the first point which we have reached in our deliberations to-day upon which I am afraid that I shall have to agree with the Lords and to disagree profoundly with the present Government. I am not quite clear whether I sum up the situation rightly. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be good enough to inform and help me to understand the position. I believe that if the decision of the other place to remove these words from the Bill were adopted, it would mean in effect that no child under 12 in this country could be employed, even by its parents or guardians. Let us make clear the point that we have made several times in discussion on this Bill, namely, that employment within the meaning of this Bill is employment for profit. That is understood. I am sure I am right there. The definition of employment, I have always understood, meant employment for profit or gain, because nobody is going to argue that any piece of legislation at any time can prevent parents sending a child of seven years of age to fetch something from a shop. Consequently, employment within the meaning of this Bill is employment in a place that is owned by the parents or guardians run for profit. If I am right, therefore, in assuming that that is so, their Lordships are very much in advance of this Government, because it would mean—

Mr. STANLEY: I am sorry to have to interrupt. If the hon. Member looks at Clause 58, in the definitions he will see that, for the purpose of this part of the Bill, a person who assists in a trade or occupation carried on for profit, shall be deemed to be employed, notwithstanding that he receives no reward for his labour. In other words, if a child goes out into its parent's garden and picks peas that are going to be sold, although he gets nothing for his labour that child is employed within the meaning of the Bill.

Mr. DAVIES: I meant the same thing. What I meant was that when a parent
or guardian employs a child, even though the child receives no wages, provided that the business of the parent or guardian is carried on for profit then the child is employed. I think that is the definition that is in the Bill. Let us see exactly what is likely to happen. The other place has declared in effect that it stands for this principle: That no child under 12 years of age, in this country, after the passing of this Measure, shall be employed within the meaning of the word "employment" by anybody, even by its parents or guardians. I think that that is a magnificent step forward in connection with the employment of children. The hon. Gentleman comes down and says that, whilst he disagrees entirely with their Lordships, he is going to soften the blow by a compromise. He says, in effect, "We will not allow children to be employed by their parents or guardians in future, and thus far we have been convinced by their Lordships; but we will allow the employment of such children to horticultural or agricultural operations."

Mr. STANLEY: Light.

Mr. DAVIES: It must be light, otherwise they could not do it. I hope that

I have summed up the situation rightly. I must say I am very sorry that the Government have not been able to accept the Lords Amendment, because, for once in a way, their Lordships have made a great advance on the present Government. I do not know why they reached that decision; that is their own business; but for my part—[Interruption.] I think they must have read my speeches. I understand that they are entitled to read our speeches there, although we are not entitled to read their speeches here. Consequently, we cannot be convinced by anything that they say, but there is a possibility of their being convinced by what we say. I am sorry that, on a Bill which is otherwise non-controversial, we must disagree with the attitude of the Government, and, unless we hear arguments very much more powerful than have been put by the hon. Gentleman, I am afraid that we shall be compelled to vote, for once, in favour of the House of Lords.

Question put, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes, 156; Noes, 28.

Division No. 270.]
AYES.
[8.27 p.m.


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.
Gledhill, Gilbert
McLean, Major Alan


Albery, Irving James
Glossop, C. W. H.
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)


Alexander. Sir William
Goff, Sir Park
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Magnay, Thomas


Aske, Sir Robert William
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Mander, Geoffrey le M.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.


Banks, sir Reginald Mitchell
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Marsden, Commander Arthur


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Hales, Harold K.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Broadbent, Colonel John
Hanbury, Cecil
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Brocklebank C. E. R.
Hanley, Dennis A.
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Harbord, Arthur
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Harris, Sir Percy
Molson, A. Hugh Eisdale


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Morgan, Robert H.


Burghley, Lord
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Morris, Rhys Hopkin (Cardigan)


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Nail, Sir Joseph


Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Holdsworth, Herbert
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)
Nunn, William


Chalmers, John Rutherford
Hornby, Frank
O'Donovan, Dr. William James


Chapman, Col, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Horsbrugh, Florence
Palmer, Francis Noel


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) 
Pearson, William G.


Cook, Thomas A.
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Peat, Charles U.


Craven-Ellis, William
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Penny, Sir George


Crooke, J. Smedley
Janner, Barnett
Peters, Dr. Sidney John


Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilst'n)


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Ker, J. Campbell
Powell, Lieut.-Col, Evelyn G. H.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Kirkpatrick, William M.
Procter, Major Henry Adam


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Law, Sir Alfred
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.


Denville, Alfred
Leckie, J. A.
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Levy, Thomas
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Dickie, John P.
Lewis, Oswald
Rea, Walter Russell


Drewe, Cedric
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Duggan, Hubert John
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington. N.)
Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Remer, John R.


Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
McKie, John Hamilton
Reynolds. Col. Sir James Philip


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Robinson, John Roland


Rosbotham, S. T.
Slater, John
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Rothschild, James A. de
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Runge, Norah Cecil
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)
Wells, Sydney Richard


Rutherford, Sir John Hugo
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J,
White, Henry Graham


Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Storey, Samuel
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard
Stourton, Hon. John J.
Womersley, Waiter James


Scone, Lord
Strickland, Captain W. F. 
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Selley, Harry R.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Tate, Mavis Constance
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)



Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Skelton, Archibald Noel
Thorp, Linton Theodore
Sir Victor Warrender and Lieut.-




Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward.


NOES.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hicks, Ernest George
Milner, Major James


Batey, Joseph
Jenkins, Sir William
Parkinson, John Allen


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Jennings, Roland
Price, Gabriel


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Buchanan, George
Kirkwood, David
Tinker, John Joseph


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Dagger, George
Lawson, John James
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Leonard, William



Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Logan, David Gilbert
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Greenwood Rt. Hon. Arthur
Lunn, William
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. John.


Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
McEntee, Valentine L.



Question put, and agreed to.

Mr. STANLEY: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the words so restored to the Bill, in page 38, line 2, at the end, to insert the words "in light agricultural or horticultural work."

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I want to make it clear that we are agreeing with the words which the hon. Gentleman is now proposing to insert, not because we agree with the whole proposal, but because this Amendment makes the position more acceptable to us than it was formerly.

CLAUSE 49.—(Power of local authority to make by-laws with respect to employment of children.)

Lords Amendment: In page 39, line 13, at the end, insert:

NEW CLAUSE B.—(Power of local authority to make by-laws with respect to employment of juvenile persons.)

(1) Subject to the provisions of this Section, a local authority may make by-laws with respect to the employment of persons under the age of eighteen years, but not being children.

(2) By-laws so made may distinguish between persons of different ages and sexes, and different localities, trade, occupations and circumstances, and may contain provisions for prescribing—

(i) the number of hours in each day or in each week for which and the times of day at which they may be employed;
(ii) the intervals to be allowed to them for meals and rest;
(iii) the holidays or half-holidays to be allowed to them;
2108
(iv) any other conditions to be observed in relation to their employment.

(3) Nothing in this Section shall empower a local authority to make by-laws with respect to—

(a) employment in or about the delivery, collection, or transport of goods except in the capacity of van boy, errand boy or messenger;
(b) employment in or in connection with factories, workshops, mines, quarries, shops, or offices, not being employment in any capacity as aforesaid;
(c) employment in the building or engineering trades, not being employment in any such capacity as aforesaid;
(d) employment in agriculture;
(e) employment in domestic service except as non-resident daily servant;
(f) employment in any ship, as denned in Section four of the Employment of Women, Young Persons and Children Act, 1920;

provided that this Section shall not come into operation until a Resolution has been passed by both Houses of Parliament.

Mr. STANLEY: I beg to move, as an amendment to the Lords Amendment, in line 33, to leave out from the word "ship" to the end of the paragraph, and to insert instead thereof the words:
or boat registered in the United Kingdom as a British ship or in any British fishing boat entered in the Fishing Boat Register.
Both in Committee and on Report this subject received a great deal of discussion and consideration. The Government took the attitude that, although at the moment it was impossible to carry out proposals of this kind, yet they were fully in sympathy with them and pro-
posed, as soon as the industrial situation improved, to implement their promise and the Committee, and the House subsequently, had sufficient faith in the genuineness of the Government's promise to accept the rejection of a similar Clause although many of those who went into the Lobby in favour of its rejection were in favour of the principle of it and wished to see it carried out at the earliest possible moment consonant with the national welfare. It is no good disguising the fact that I have been put in an extremely difficult position by the action of the Noble Lord who moved this new Clause and by its acceptance in the other House. I regret, of course, that they were not prepared to accept the pledge which was given in this House and which was repeated in the other and have seen fit not only to move this new Clause but to make the position even more difficult by adding the rider to it. This new Clause is wholly bad. It has no redeeming merits whatever. To start with, when we were discussing the matter on Report, in many quarters of the House which were favourable to the proposal itself doubts were expressed as to whether the local authority was the right body to carry out these duties, and from other quarters it was said very strongly that we had already gone too far in the direction of placing obligations of this kind upon local authorities and that the time would come when, if we were going to do things of this kind, the central Government which ordered it must take the responsibility of carrying it out.
I promised at the time that the interval that would have to elapse before the industrial situation improved and the Government was able to implement its pledge would be used by me in examining alternative methods to see if we could not carry out the pledge, when the time came,, in a way that would be acceptable to the whole House. I was in the course of making arrangements for what I believe is the only way to get these proposals on a proper footing, and that is to meet personally the trades chiefly concerned with these various unregulated employments, and I hoped, by means of personal consultation with them, to devise some method which would enable me to present to the House something that was agreed to by the employers, which was not objectionable to Members of the House and which all parties could join in sup-
porting. My position has been made infinitely more difficult by the passage of this Clause. I have not doubt Members are already getting communication from various trading organisations which feel that in some way or other faith has been broken with them. They refer to a statement which I made, and to which I adhere, that I want this thing to be done, when it is done, with the consent and not in the teeth of the employers concerned. I shall have some hesitation in approaching them and probably some difficulty in dealing with them when they feel that the case has been judged over their heads and that there is not much good in discussing something that is already on the Statute Book. For that reason I feel that the Clause is actually a hindrance in the way of ever getting the thing that the Clause expresses done.
But there is an even more serious objection. The Clause sets out the machinery for dealing with unregulated employments. It goes on to say that this machinery can be brought into operation by a simple Resolution passed by both Houses of Parliament. The similar Clause was defeated in this House and was never inserted in the Bill. Therefore at no stage has there been any opportunity for Amendment or criticism. It would mean that the whole of this machinery could be brought into operation by a simple Resolution without those in this House who happen to disagree with it ever having had a single opportunity of putting down one Amendment to one of its provisions. Whether hon. Members support these proposals or not, they will all agree that it is not fair to the opponents of a Measure of such importance as this that they should be deprived of legitimate opportunities for Parliamentary discussion. As far as the merits of the Clause are concerned I should be asking the House not to amend it but to reject it, because I feel that it is of no assistance. In fact, to the supporters of the proposal, if anything, it is going rather to hamper them in their work, whereas it may seem to those who are opposed to it that the proposal is in some way a breach of faith and a deprivation of their natural Parliamentary rights.
On the other hand, I have to consider the very difficult position in which it would put many supporters of the Government, who want to see this thing done as soon as they can who have loyally,
under great difficulty, accepted the assurance that I gave, if we have a quarrel with the House of Lords over a thing of this kind. The outside public does not follow the little niceties of politics. Even organised bodies, such as Chambers of Trade, which have been circularising Members of Parliament do not realise the significance of the rider that is tied to the end of the Clause. It will be represented in the country as a struggle between the House of Lords, which wants to be progressive and to help these poor people, and the House of Commons, which is so reactionary that it will not assist them. That seems to me a position in which it is very hard to put a great number of supporters of the Government who have been very loyal
It is necessary, before I ask the House to pass the two Amendments which I am going to propose and then to agree with the new Clause, that I should make a perfectly clear statement of the intention of the Government. Of course, the fact that our pledge should be disregarded, that over our heads this Clause has been passed, would, if we were standing upon points of punctilio, have relieved us of the pledge we had given. We should be under no necessity now as a matter of honour to carry out the pledge we gave to the House that we would, as soon as the industrial situation improved, carry out the proposal. After all, when we are dealing with these young persons and with matters of great moment to them, no Government is going to stand on punctilio. It would go on with equal sincerity to try to bring it to the appropriate stage at the appropriate time. I must warn the House that the presence of this Clause upon the Statute Book does not commit us for one moment to the acceptance of this particular machinery to deal with the problem when the time comes. There was a strong feeling in the House against this local by-law method. I am at liberty, even if the Clause is passed, to pursue my inquiries and, if necessary and advisable, to ask the House, when the time comes, to adopt some quite new machinery. In no circumstances, even if this goes on to the Statute Book with a rider attached to it, amended by an Amendment which makes it necessary that the Resolution which brings the Clause into force shall be moved by the Government, for that
is, in fact, what it means, should it be open to any back bench Member at any hour of the night and on any day of the Session suddenly to get up and move its amendment.
I would make it clear that even if it goes on to the Statute Book this Government have no intention of moving the method provided by this Clause, which is to say, by passing this Clause into law by a simple Resolution of both Houses of Parliament. We feel that it would be most unfair. It would be depriving those who were in opposition or who had a desire for friendly criticism or amendment of the Clause, of their ordinary Parliamentary rights. So that when the time comes and we are ready to introduce legislation to deal with this problem, even if the legislation we finally decide upon takes the exact form found in this Clause, it is the intention of the Government to introduce that legislation in the ordinary way and allow it to pass through all the ordinary stages of Parliamentary procedure, and give to friends and foes alike the ordinary opportunity for Parliamentary criticism and debate. The position in which we find ourselves is inevitable. On the whole I think that the solution which I am proposing to the House is the best. I believe that it will reassure those who feel that they are being deprived of their rights. It will, at any rate, make some gesture. Though it does not in any way strengthen the declaration we have already made, it will avoid what I think would be very unfortunate, a dispute with the noble Lords on this question, which would only be misunderstood by people outside.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I sympathise very much indeed with the position of the Under-Secretary. Really the situation has been very difficult for him. I will state the attitude of my hon. Friends and myself towards this problem. It has to be remembered that the new Clause deals only with approximately 400,000 young persons, between 14 and 18 years of age, in employment in the unregulated trades. It has nothing to do with young persons employed in factories and workshops. If the hon. Gentleman will look at the new Clause he will see that it proposes to do something on the one hand, and then, on the other hand, it makes sure that it is not done at all. Members who sat on the Committee upstairs will remember what we would have liked to do. We said that
the only way to settle the problem was to set up a maximum 48-hours week for those young people. We were defeated by the Government. They would have none of it. I am certain now that it would have been very much better if we had adopted a maximum 48-hours week in respect of those young persons. The weakness of the new Clause is obvious. It says, in effect, that the local authority may make by-laws. Let us ask ourselves how many local authorities would make such by-laws, and, if they did so, how many hours would be set forth as the maximum for those young persons.
Hon. Gentlemen will realise how very weak the Clause really is. It throws upon local authorities a duty which ought to devolve upon Parliament. The hon. Gentleman must have in mind, in this connection, the report of the Select Committee on Shop Assistants, which deals with part of this problem. We shall continually be pressing the Government to do something in the light of that report, and at that stage the whole of the problem dealing with the 400,000 young persons engaged in unregulated trades can be dealt with. Finally, we say of the Clause that, in spite of all its weaknesses and the fact that it may not do very much, it has one thing in its favour. It sets forth in legal enactment the idea that local authorities ought to take the initiative to regulate the employment of those young persons between 14 and 18 years of age. It comes to this, that if the local authorities do not carry out the duties suggested in the new Clause it will be their own fault, and nobody can do otherwise than accept their decision. We support the Clause, not because we think that it will do very much, but as a small beginning in the right direction.

Mr. DEPUTY - SPEAKER (Captain Bourne): The Minister has made a very long statement on the subject of the Clause, and the hon. Member for West-houghton (Mr. R. Davies) has again dealt with the main subject of the Clause. I think that that is generally for the convenience of the House, but I must safeguard the position of the Chair and point out that if we take a discussion on the Lords Amendment on this Amendment, we cannot have a second discussion on the Question "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Mr. MANDER: We certainly seem to have got into an extra-ordinary position with regard to this Clause. Any merits which it had—and it had certain strictly limited merits—have been completely done away with by the reservation which the hon. Member the Under-Secretary has had to make, which in effect washes out the whole Clause. He made it clear, as far as the Government are concerned, that they have no intention of taking the one action which would give it the force of law. I do not complain of what they are doing. In the circumstances it may be the best result. I have always been one of those who, through thick and thin, have stood by the hon. Gentleman and thought that the policy he was pursuing was, on the whole, the best in trying to get the desired results. In these altered circumstances, in the little rebuff which the Government have had in this Clause, whatever form it takes in the Bill, is he prepared, in spite of this, to go on, and are the Government prepared to go on just as firmly in their negotiations with the different parties interested and bring forward the necessary legislation dealing with the matter in a much wider and bolder way Are they prepared to do that as if the little episode had not taken place at all? I want a definite assurance from my hon. Friend, and if he can give it I shall be satisfied.

Mr. CROOM-JOHNSON: The Undersecretary has met what I thank is an unparalleled Parliamentary situation with his usual agility and his usual air of sweet reason, but the attitude which the Government propose to adopt places a great many of their most ardent supporters in a position of very considerable difficulty. We had a prolonged Debate on the Report stage of the Clause as it was then proposed, and I pointed out a number of difficulties that must arise. I also said that a great many of us desired that this question of blind alley occupation should be dealt with adequately and in a national way, which was possible, in order to ensure that we should have some uniformity throughout the country. After Chat prolonged Debate and after certain pledges had been given by the Home Secretary, added to by the Under-Secretary, the House thought fit to reject the Amendment. I made an appeal to the Noble Lady who moved the Amendment, pointing out that she was placing those who believed in this
proposal, in principle, in a position of great difficulty, because we should have to vote against an Amendment when we were in favour of its principle. We had to survive that difficulty and we did so, and now we have been placed in another.
We are now placed in a situation in which this, apparently, is to happen. We are to be invited to pass legislation which is to take its place on the Statute Book of this Realm and we are to be told at the same time that it means nothing, is never going to be enforced and that nothing is to be done about it. I do not care what Government is in office, I protest against this House being dealt with in such a manner. I believe that if the Government's pledge, which I accepted before and which I am ready and willing to accept now, were given again the fear that the people in the constituencies will not understand what the National Government are doing and will, apparently, be minded to support another place instead of supporting the National Government, would not be worthy of our consideration. To add to the legislation that we are passing something which stultifies that legislation and to have at the same time a pledge from a responsible Member of the Government that no attempt at all will be made to implement that legislation and to make it effective, is merely to place those of us who come here with a desire to grapple with the problems of the country in a position of considerable difficulty and even to place us in a position of complete nonentity. Such a proposal I should think has rarely if ever been submitted to this House. I believe that if the Government made a plain statement on this matter with the same courage that it shows when it refuses to act about some things we desire them to act about, there would be no misunderstanding in the country and no misunderstanding in the constituencies.
9.0 p.m.
When this matter was raised on the Report stage we had another example of Front Bench agility. This time it came from the Home Secretary on the 12th May. In page 265, col. 2150 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, he explained why it was that the Government felt that they could not deal with the matter in this Bill and at this time. He pointed out that the Measure was introduced as a non-controversial Measure. So far as I am
concerned this topic is not a matter of controversy. I was interested to hear from the right hon. Gentleman that, apparently, it was a matter that might be a topic of controversy. He went on to say that:
The Bill went through Second Reading with universal approval. No opposition was raised on this ground.
That is, on the ground that this topic was going to be dealt with.
Suppose we now say, Very well, now that we have got through the Second Reading, in Committee or on the Report stage we will put in this controversial matter, would that be dealing fairly with the House or with the interests outside that had objected to this provision? 
I am not much concerned with interests outside, but I am pointing out what the right hon. Gentleman said as the reason for the attitude which the Government then adopted:
I think the provision is a good one, but there are others who object. Suppose some hon. Member, of a suspicious nature, had risen on Second Reading and said, 'There are some hon. Members who desire to have in the Bill a Clause to which we object. The Government have introduced this Measure without that Clause, and have said this is going to be a non-controversial Bill. If I allow the Second Reading to go through without opposition, of course you will not afterwards come forward and say, "We are very sorry, but we find it necessary to introduce this controversial Clause." 'If any such assurance had been asked for, a representative of the Government would have given that assurance. We could not at one and the same time say, 'This is a non-controversial Bill, pass it on that basis, but later on, after it has passed through one or two stages without being obstructed, we may—'
An hon. Member asked whether that was a hypothetical question or was that assurance given. The right hon. Gentleman continued:
No, there was not an hon. Member who would have thought it possible.
The hon. Member then said: "It is hypothetical," and the right hon. Gentleman replied:
Quite. No such assurance was given, because no such request was made.
The matter was dealt with at very considerable length, and a full explanation was given. A little later in the Debate my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary again referred to it. He said:
In moving the Second Reading I gave the reasons why we had omitted it, and it was in those circumstances that those who are not particularly interested in the rest of
the Bill and who would have been violently opposed to such a provisions as this, took none of the steps which are open to the Opposition to any particular proposal and did not oppose the Second Reading."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th May, 1932; cols. 2150–2151, 2195, Vol. 265.]
I want to make it plain to the House that I am not one of those who was opposed in principle to this proposal and I cannot help feeling that as we were warned on that occasion by the right hon. Gentleman that some opposition had been lulled to sleep by virtue of the form that the Bill took, we as private Members ought not now, although we may believe in this particular proposal, as a principle, to take any part in committing what I believe would be a breach of faith with those persons whose opposition was lulled to sleep on the basis that this was non-controversial and that this controversial thing to them would not be included. Speaking for myself, I suggest to the Government that to invite us now, in face of what two representatives of the Government said on the Report stage, to go back on all that and accept a Clause which was riddled with criticism at the time, and has been riddled by the most powerful criticism of the Undersecretary of State in the course of the last few moments, to ask us to do this practically without debate and without any real opportunity of welding this legislation into something like a useful shape, is to invite us to stultify ourselves and the whole proceedings of this House.
I regret extremely the attitude which the Government have adopted. They are straining the loyalty of people who have been brought here with a desire to support them to the last degree in everything they do, and I ask them to consider whether it is not possible, instead of passing legislation with a stay of execution upon it in order to prevent the Lords being misunderstood in the constituencies, to take the obvious and proper course, to disagree with the Amendment and consider the introduction of legislation which would be acceptable to all and which would really grapple with a problem which this House ought to have grappled with long ago.

Mr. DENMAN: The Under-Secretary of State will no doubt have realised that the speech he made in moving that we disagree with the Lords in this Amend-
ment was controversial and has invited a good deal of debate. I only want to add one word because I think the quicker we get on with this matter the better. I join in the protest against the procedure of accepting something put in by the other House on the understanding that it is not to be operative. The attitude of the Government in relation to this Clause has been something of a strain on those who value the constitution. What right have the Government to say to the people outside that they introduced the Bill on certain conditions and that they would not tolerate an amendment of a certain kind. That Amendment happens to have been made, and they now say that this House and the other place are not entitled to make this Amendment because of some understanding with people outside. If that is the attitude of the Government towards the constitution—

Mr. STANLEY: There was no understanding; and I made the position quite plain to the House.

Mr. DENMAN: The hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Groom-Johnson) quoted from the Home Secretary to the effect that there was an understanding—I do not mind whether it was inside the House or outside—that the Bill was to be in such a form that a certain Amendment was not to be allowed. I protest against the theory that this question (has not been adequately discussed. It has been before the House for the greater part of 20 years. It first came up in a Home Office Bill in 1913, and to say that it has not been adequately discussed in that time is an exaggeration of language. Actually, this particular Clause was discussed in Committee at undue length, for which I was partly responsible, and those who attended the Debate in the Lords heard one of the most interesting discussions on the Bill. It was the deliberate decision of the House of Lords. In those circumstances to accept it and say that we accept it only on the condition that it shall in no circumstances be put into operation seems to me to be a violation of the working of the two Houses. Having said that let me close on a less controversial note. Surely the whole House is agreed on one great simple fact—namely, that here is an old and crying evil, substantial in amount, with which we all want to deal. We all want the
same thing; we want the best possible method of dealing with it. Let us accept the proposal and the Government's continued pledge that they will do their best to find the best possible way of dealing with it, and all unite in a common endeavour to get rid of this old and intolerable evil.

Sir WALTER GREAVES-LORD: I join in the protest against the Government's proposal to agree with the Lords Amendment, subject to it being altered in the way the Government desire. I supported the Clause brought up on Report stage because I thought something should be done and because it called for immediate action. When this Bill gets to another place the Clause is altered, and the words are added—
provided that this Section shall not come into operation until a Resolution has been passed by both Houses of Parliament.
That means that this new Clause is purely an academic resolution, and nothing more. It is a complete farce with these words at the end. The Government's suggested Amendment is merely another method of continuing in the same path. I would rather they took the only proper course, and that is to disagree with a Clause which is a farce.

Mr. LYONS: I desire to associate myself with what has been said by the hon. and learned Member for Bridgewater (Mr. Croom-Johnson). I yield to none in my desire to protect young people in their employment. The possibility of the over-employment of young persons has aroused the interest of a good many people for many years, and those of us who desire to safeguard the conditions under which these young people are employed feel that it is the duty of this House to grapple with the realities of the case and not put forward anything which leaves the situation just as it is. The Government ought not to put on the Statute Book something which seems only a sham. As supporters of the National Government in all its undertakings, we feel that if there is to be legislation to remedy what is said to be an existing abuse of the employment of young persons, then the remedy should come by legislation of this House. Speaking for myself, I feel strongly that to put on the Statute Book a Clause of this nature, with a rider at the end, which makes it
completely inoperative, is to put an end to all attempts to deal with the problem. There is no intention, according to the Under-Secretary of State, to put into operation the machinery of this Clause which is designed for the protection of persons against over-employment. I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Norwood (Sir. W. Greaves-Lord) that if there is something that wants to be remedied let us pass legislation and remedy it.
I think I am right in saying that this Clause was discussed in this House for some six hours. Every possible angle was reviewed, and after a very long and careful investigation it was rejected. I do not like to think that this bad Clause should now be accepted by this House merely to prevent some misapprehension by the country as to our position with another place. Our duty is to deal with the position as it is, to pass a Measure Clause by Clause which will be effective, and above all, while we desire to safe-guard the interests of the young person in employment, not to put any harassing restraint on trade which would bring about the very evil which we are trying to prevent, namely, the depression of industries throughout the country. One can conceive a local authority, if it had the power to pass these regulations, making a set of laws directly at variance with those of a neighbouring authority, and the young person would be at a complete loss to know how he stood. Particularly as it is intended only as a sham, and in no way to deal with the position, I hope the hon. Member representing the Home Office will not try to get behind the decision of this House, when it was proposed some time ago by a private Member and refused by the House. I hope this Clause will be either withdrawn or rejected in the interests of the work of the National Government and of this particular object.

Amendment to Lords Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made to Lords Amendment: In line 36, leave out from the beginning, to the end of the Amendment, and insert the words:
(4) An order of the Secretary of State appointing a date for this section to come into operation shall be laid in draft before both Houses of Parliament, and the Secretary of State shall not make the order until the draft has been approved by resolutions passed in the same session of Parliament by both houses of Parliament."—[Mr. Stanley.]

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 61, line 30, agreed to.

The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Mr. Baldwin): I beg to move, "That further Consideration of the Lords Amendments be now adjourned."

My purpose in doing so is to enable the Government, by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to make a statement of much importance.

Lords Amendments to be further considered upon Monday next.

FIVE PER CENT. WAR LOAN (CONVERSION).

ME. CHAMBERLAIN'S STATEMENT.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Chamberlain.]

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): The Adjournment of the House has been moved in order that I may, with hon. Members' permission, announce the Government's plan for the conversion of the War Loan. I offer my apologies for interrupting the normal business of the House, but I have no option. The House has the right to be the first to hear an announcement of this character, and the hour of the evening at which such an announcement must be made is precisely determined for me by a consideration, on the one hand, of the hours of business in America, and, on the other hand, of the minimum time which must be at the disposal of the Press to enable them to make the scheme known and understood in the country upon the following day.
Talk of conversion, has been in the air a long time, and naturally so, for it has been growing increasingly obvious that the War Loan at 5 per cent. was out of relation to the yield of other Government securities, and, moreover, that the maintenance of that old War-time rate attaching to so vast a body of stock and hanging like a cloud over the capital
market was a source of depression and a hindrance to the expansion of trade. Nevertheless the choice of a proper moment at which to launch so vast an undertaking is one which demands most careful and anxious consideration, and the final decision to make this announcement to-night was only arrived at after a number of alternatives had been examined and rejected.
I may, perhaps, give the House some of the reasons which have convinced me of the necessity for prompt action. In the first place economy is an urgent matter, and this scheme, effecting so great a reduction in our interest charges, is an essential element in any economy proposals. In the second place I anticipate that from a general reduction in the level of interest charges great benefits should flow to industry, which will be enabled more easily to obtain such capital as it needs and to secure that capital on better terms. There is a great consensus of opinion that the continued existence of a vast body of British Government stock yielding a 5 per cent. return is an artificial obstacle to a fall in interest rates to a lower level at which they would otherwise naturally stand.
Thirdly, we are in the fortunate position that the relative merits of British Government securities, by comparison with all other investments, British and foreign, have never been more amply recognised by the world at large than at this moment. That, as the House will realise, is a vital factor in the success of such an operation.
9.30 p.m.
Fourthly, while we are in a position to secure immediately such important results as I have indicated, I do not consider that further delay would be justified either by the prospect of small additional savings or by any hope that the operation would become any easier with the lapse of time.
The final and the strongest argument for immediate action is to be found in the spirit of the country. After a long period of depression we have recovered our freedom in monetary matters. We have balanced our Budget in the face of the most formidable difficulties, and we have shown the strongest resistance of any country to the general troubles affecting world trade. I am convinced
that the country is in the mood for great enterprises, and is both able and determined to carry them through to a successful conclusion.
Before I come to the particulars of the scheme there is one personal matter to which I should like to make reference. It is well known that my predecessor, Lord Snowden, had hoped to undertake this operation last year, had conditions been favourable, and in the Finance Bill introduced by the first National Government in September last he embodied a series of Clauses preparing the way. Lord Snowden was deprived of the satisfaction of carrying his plans into effect, but I propose to avail myself in every detail of the procedure provided in the Finance Act of last year, which has rendered my task easier and introduced conditions more favourable than would otherwise have been possible.
In a few moments' time a special edition of the "London Gazette" will be published. It will contain a notice intimating that the Government intend to repay the War Loan in cash on the 1st December next to those holders who decide to apply for repayment within three months from this date, but the notice will also intimate that holders of the Loan are invited to continue in the Loan on altered conditions.
It is my confident hope that the great mass of the holders will respond to this invitation. I am arranging for copies of documents to be available to hon. Members in the Vote Office immediately on the conclusion of my statement, and, for this reason, I shall for the moment omit minor alterations, and shall confine myself to a statement of the principal changes in the terms of the continued Loan. The dividend of the 1st December next must be paid at the rate of 5 per cent. per annum, the rate payable under the original prospectus, until the notice to repay becomes effective. Thereafter, beginning with the dividend payable on 1stt June, 1933, the rate of interest will be 3½ per cent. per annum. Up to the 1st December, 1952, five years later than the latest date for the repayment of the Loan under the original prospectus, the Government forgo all right to redeem the Loan. After that date the Government reserve to themselves the right to
repay the Loan, at any time, either in a single operation or by instalments. The existing arrangement under which the interest is paid without deduction of Income Tax at the source—a special privilege which has proved itself a great convenience to an enormous number of small holders—will continue unchanged.
I am bound by the terms of the prospectus of the 5 per cent. War Loan to give at least three months' notice to redeem, but in an operation of this immense magnitude it is very desirable that we should know as quickly as possible where we stand, and that we should have ample time to concert such remaining measures as may be necessary. For this reason, but also because we recognise that the inevitable reduction in the rate of interest may, when it first comes, be seriously felt in a number of cases, we offer a cash bonus at the rate of £l for every £100 of stock to all those holders who not later than 31st July, assent to the offer to continue in the Loan: this cash bonus which in the case of the ordinary investor will not be liable to Income Tax, will be paid to each holder within 14 days from the date of receipt of his effective assent.
The House will desire to know what saving would be effected by this scheme. The saving in interest charge at which we aim by this conversion scheme is in the region of £30,000,000 per annum. In the nature of things none of the saving can be realised in this financial year, the current expenditure of which will be unaffected by this operation. But the whole of the saving will be realised in the year 1933. It must, however, be remembered that the reduction of interest carries with it a reduction in the yield of Income Tax and Surtax and, taking this into account, the net budgetary saving may be put at about £23,000,000 per annum.
There are nearly 3,000,000 people who hold War Loan. Many of these have, I expect, but little experience in construing a complicated prospectus, and they will therefore be glad to receive a simple statement of the aims and policy which underlie this operation. For these reasons, I have thought it right to arrange that, when the prospectus and other relative documents are sent, as they will be, to every holder, a letter over my signature should also be enclosed, explaining the nature of the scheme and the purpose behind it. I am making copies of this letter available to hon.
Members in the Vote Office as soon as my statement is concluded.
The letter will go, as I have said, to all holders, great and small. Large investors to whom a conversion operation is a familiar process may well find in parts of it phrases more simple and less technical than is customary on these occasions. I feel no doubt that, remembering the immensely wide circulation the message will have, they will appreciate my object and will not regard the letter as superfluous
I am sure that anyone who may be contemplating the issue of new capital in the market in the early future will forebear from coming forward for a few weeks while this great operation is proceeding and that the authorities in the City of London will co-operate in this necessary object. I should add that the sale of Savings Certificates will be temporarily suspended as from this evening, but, as we have of course no intention of abandoning that valuable method of borrowing, a new certificate, details of which will appear in the Press to-morrow, will be placed on sale after a short interval.
I will mention one other matter which may be of some interest. My preparations have been proceeding for many weeks, but the essential need for secrecy in preparation has prevented me from printing any of the many millions of forms which I require. With the willing co-operation and assistance of the Bank of England, the Government propose to attempt the gigantic task of printing 15,000,000 forms and despatching them by post in nearly 3,000,000 envelopes within a space of 24 hours from now. These letters will not, of course, reach all the holders to whom they are addressed on Saturday morning, for the holders live in all parts of the country—and indeed of the world—but they will all be on their way by to-morrow night. In this way we shall cover all the holdings at the Bank of England and the Post Office. In addition, upwards of 500,000 letters containing supplementary notices in special cases will, we hope, be posted early on Saturday. I do not undertake that we can completely fulfil this almost superhuman programme, but we shall spare no effort, and I am sure that our endeavour to present our scheme with the least delay and in the most intelligible form will be widely appreciated.
For the response we must trust, and I am certain we shall not trust in vain, to the good sense and patriotism of the 3,000,000 holders to whom we shall appeal.

Mr. LANSBURY: I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that the House will not expect any discussion on the statement which has just been made, but I am sure also, that you and my fellow Members will allow me to say one or two things on this occasion. First, may I say a personal word to the Chancellor of the Exchequer? On behalf of myself and my friends I congratulate him on being in good health and able to come back and to make this statement to-night. We heard that he had been ill; we are very glad to see him, and we hope that his health is as good as the clearness of his speech would lead us to imagine. With regard to the statement itself, I only want to say on behalf of my friends that we welcome it most heartily. Everyone knows our view on this subject, and we are delighted that, at long last, an effort is to be made to put this enormous debt on a better footing. Although we have tremendous differences of opinion with the noble Lord in another place and with the right hon. Gentleman, we congratulate them both on having had a part in bringing this scheme to fruition. We all agree that the step which the right hon. Gentleman is taking is the very best form of economy. It is one of those steps which we think would enable us to have a better understanding with regard to the conditions of life throughout the length and breadth of the land. We also think that everyone: of the stockholders ought to be- only too willing to fall in with the right hon. Gentleman's proposals, and we hope that his appeal to their patriotism will result in accomplishing that which he has set out to do.

Sir AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I hope that my relationship with the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not be held to debar me from offering a few observations,, as a previous holder of that office. I join very heartily in the congratulations which the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition has felt able on this occasion to offer to my right hon. Friend and his colleague. I desire only to add that I think that the statement which the Chancellor has just made was as wise in the steps which he outlined as it was lucid
in its exposition, and that I am confident that he will meet with the response from the country which he has a right to expect.

Sir GODFREY COLLINS: I am sure that all sections of the House desire to congratulate the Chancellor on what I think is one of the most momentous statements made in this House since the War, for we have listened to-night to the complete vindication of British credit in the eyes of the world and, what is more, to the complete vindication of the National Government, for there was no charge made more seriously than that while cuts were being made, the interest on the War Loan was not being reduced. I am sure that all sections of the House desire to congratulate the Chancellor and hope that his words may find a response in the
minds of all investors, and that every investor may convert at the lowered rate of interest.
We have during the last nine months witnessed a most remarkable scene. Some nine months ago we saw British credit ebbing. We witness to-night the rise of British credit by nearly 25 per cent., and I am sure that I echo what is in the mind of every hon. Member when I say that we hope that the Chancellor, having dealt with the War Loan, will deal with the Supply services, so that the Income Taxpayer in the coming year may see his rate reduced and, what is more, the rate of employment increased in this country.

Adjourned accordingly at Twelve minutes before Ten o'clock.